Authors: Ginny Fay, Tobias Schwörer, Mouhcine Guettabi, Jeffrey Armagost UAA Institute of Social and Economic Research Alaska University Transportation Center Analysis of Alaska Transportation Sectors to Assess Energy Use and Impacts of Price Shocks and Climate Change Legislation INE/AUTC13.03 Date: April 2013 Alaska University Transportation Center Duckering Building Room 245 P.O. Box 755900 Fairbanks, AK 99775-5900 UAA Institute of Social and Economic Research 3211 Providence Dr. Anchorage, AK 99508 Prepared By: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage Photo
Analysis of Alaska Transportation Sectors to Assess Energy Use
and Impacts of Price Shocks and Climate Change Legislation
INE/AUTC13.03
Date:
April 2013
Alaska University Transportation Center
Duckering Building Room 245
P.O. Box 755900
Fairbanks, AK 99775-5900
UAA Institute of Social and Economic
Research
3211 Providence Dr.
Anchorage, AK 99508
Prepared By:
Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage
Photo
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Form approved OMB No.
Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any
other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestion for reducing this burden to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information
Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction
Project (0704-1833), Washington, DC 20503
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (LEAVE BLANK)
2. REPORT DATE
April 2013
3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
Final Report (8/1/2009-4/31/2013)
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Analysis of Alaska Transportation Sectors to Assess Energy Use and
Impacts of Price Shocks and Climate Change Legislation
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
Institute of Social and Economic Research
University of Alaska Anchorage
3211 Providence Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
Alaska University Transportation Center
PO Box 755900 Fairbanks, AK 99775-5900
10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
INE/AUTC13.03
11. SUPPLENMENTARY NOTES
12a. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
No restrictions
12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)
We analyzed the use of energy by Alaska’s transportation sectors to assess the impact of sudden fuel prices changes.
We conducted three types of analysis: 1) Development of broad energy use statistics for each transportation sector,
including total annual energy and fuel use, carbon emissions, fuel use per ton-mile and passenger-mile, and cost of
fuel per ton-mile and passenger-mile. 2) Economic input-output analysis of air, rail, truck, and water transportation
sectors. 3) Adjustment of input-output modeling to reflect sudden fuel price changes to estimate the potential impact
on industry output and employment. Alaska air transportation used approximately 1.9 billion gallons of fuel annually;
961 million gallons were used for intra-state and exiting Alaska flights. Water transportation used 101.8 million
gallons annually, approximately 84.3 million gallons for intra-state and exiting segments. Railroad and truck
transportation used 5.1 and 8.8 million gallons annually, respectively. Simulated fuel price increases resulted in an
estimated $456.8 million in value-added losses to the Alaska economy through the increase in cost of transportation
services, as well as an equivalent loss in income to Alaska household of $26.8 million. A carbon emissions tax would
have the greatest impact on the cost of air transportation services followed by water, trucking and rail.
14- KEYWORDS : transportation, fuel prices, emissions, Alaska, air transportation, water transportation, rail
transportation, truck transportation, energy economics
15. NUMBER OF PAGES
16. PRICE CODE
N/A 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF REPORT
Unclassified
18. SECURITY
CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
Unclassified
19. SECURITY
CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified
20. LIMITATION OF
ABSTRACT
N/A
NSN 7540-01-280-5500 STANDARD FORM 298 (Rev. 2-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 298
i
Contents
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ iv
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................ vi
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................... vii
Research Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 17
Water Transportation ............................................................................................................................. 18
Land Transportation ................................................................................................................................ 20
Findings and Applications ........................................................................................................................... 23
Fuel Use and Efficiency by Mode ............................................................................................................ 23
Water Transportation ......................................................................................................................... 23
Land Transportation ............................................................................................................................ 30
Final Calculations ............................................................................................................................... B-3
Limitation of the Analysis ................................................................................................................... B-5
Appendix C. Data Dictionary of Variables and Sources Used for Aviation Fuel Estimates ....................... C-1
Appendix D. Glossary of Economic Impact Terms ................................................................................... D-1
iii
List of Figures
Figure ES1. Comparison of fuel use and costs per ton-mile for Alaska transportation, 2007–2010, 2011$ ............................................................................................................................................................ 2
Figure ES2. Comparison of fuel use and costs per passenger-mile for rail and air, 2007–2010, 2011$ ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
Figure ES3. Comparison annual emissions by transportation sector, intra-state and exiting only, 2007–2010 .................................................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 1. Alaska transportation system ........................................................................................................ 8
Figure 3. Estimate of imports to Alaska via water transportation, thousands of short tons, 2010 ........... 10
Figure 4. Estimate of exports from Alaska via water transportation, thousands of short tons, 2010 ............................................................................................................................................................ 11
Figure 5. Alaska Marine Highway System communities and routes ........................................................... 12
Figure 6. Inter-Island Ferry Authority communities and routes ................................................................. 13
Figure 7. Map of Alaska major roadways .................................................................................................... 14
Figure 10. Alaska Railroad freight transport in short tons, petroleum and all other goods (AOG), 2007–2009 .................................................................................................................................................. 31
Figure 11. Comparison of annual fuel use, 2007–2010 .............................................................................. 35
Figure 13. Comparison of annual fuel prices per gallon, 2007–2010, 2011$ ............................................. 36
Figure 14. Comparison of fuel use and costs per ton-mile for Alaska transportation, 2007–2010, 2011$ .......................................................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 15. Comparison of fuel use and costs per passenger-mile for rail and air, 2007–2010, 2011$ .......................................................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 16. Comparison of annual emissions by transportation sector, intrastate and exiting only, 2007–2010 .................................................................................................................................................. 55
Table 2. Illustrative input-output transactions table (in millions of dollars) .............................................. 22
Table 3. Estimated fuel usage and costs for freight movement by marine vessels 2006–2010, 2011$ .......................................................................................................................................................... 25
Table 4. Estimated tons, fuel usage and costs for freight movement by barge 2006–2012, 2011$ .......... 25
Table 5. Estimated regional fuel usage for freight movement by barge 2006–2012, 2011$ ..................... 26
Table 6. Passengers, freight, fuel usage, and costs for the Alaska Marine Highway System and Inter-Island Ferry Authority 2007–2010, 2011$ ......................................................................................... 28
Table 7. Estimated tons, fuel usage, and costs for freight movement for the Alaska Marine Highway System and Inter-Island Ferry Authority 2007–2010, 2011$ ....................................................... 29
Table 8. Estimated tons, fuel usage, and costs for passenger movement by the Alaska Marine Highway System and Inter-Island Ferry Authority, 2007–2010, 2011$ ...................................................... 29
Table 9. Annual passengers and freight by segment type for the Alaska Marine Highway System and Inter-Island Ferry Authority segment types 2007–2010, 2011$ .......................................................... 30
Table 10. Fuel usage and costs for freight movement by the Alaska Railroad 2007–2010, 2011$ ............ 31
Table 11. Alaska Railroad freight transport in short tons, petroleum and all other goods ........................ 31
Table 12. Average fuel usage and costs for freight movement by the Alaska Railroad 2007–2010, 2011$ .......................................................................................................................................................... 32
Table 13. Fuel usage and costs for passenger movement by the Alaska Railroad 2007–2010, 2011$ .......................................................................................................................................................... 32
Table 14. Average fuel usage and costs for passenger movement by the Alaska Railroad 2007–2010, 2011$ ................................................................................................................................................ 32
Table 15. Estimated fuel usage and costs by long-haul trucks, 2011$ ....................................................... 33
Table 16. Fuel usage and costs for intra-state scheduled air transportation in Alaska 2005–2010, 2011$ .......................................................................................................................................................... 34
Table 17. Estimated transportation fuel use and costs, Alaska 2007–2010 ............................................... 37
Table 18. Comparison of fuel use and costs per ton-mile for Alaska water transportation, 2007–2010, 2011$ ................................................................................................................................................ 38
Table 19. Comparison of fuel use and costs per ton-mile for rail and trucking, 2007–2010, 2011$ ......... 38
Table 20. Comparison of fuel use and costs per passenger-mile for rail, ferry and air, 2007–2010, 2011$ .......................................................................................................................................................... 38
Table 21. Alaska transportation sector employment, payroll, and firms by transportation mode, 2008 ............................................................................................................................................................ 40
Table 22. Alaska transportation sector employment, payroll, and firms by transportation mode, 2010 ............................................................................................................................................................ 41
Table 23. Change in Alaska transport sector employment, payroll, and firms, 2008–2010....................... 42
Table 24. Number of transportation industry firms by size, 2008* ............................................................ 43
v
Table 25. Number of transportation industry firms by size, 2010* ............................................................ 44
Table 29. Value-added losses (most affected industries relative to own value added) ............................. 48
Table 30. Change in institution and industry commodity demand for transportation services between 2008 and 2010 ............................................................................................................................. 49
Table 31. Alaska industries with largest transportation expenditure inputs, 2008, million$$................... 50
Table 32. Mode shifts for Alaska industries with largest transportation expenditure inputs following imposed fuel price increases ....................................................................................................... 51
Table 33. Institution and industry demand for water transportation, 2008 and 2010 (2008$) ................. 52
Table 34. Increases in the cost of transportation services to households by income groups after an increase in the price of refined petroleum products, millions$$ .......................................................... 52
Table 35. Increases in the cost of air, rail, water, and truck transportation services to households by income groups after an increase in the price of refined petroleum products, millions$$ ................... 53
Table 36. Shift in household purchases of air, rail, water, and truck transportation services due to increases in the cost of transportation services ..................................................................................... 54
Table 37. Increases in household expenditures due to an increase in the cost of refined fuel prices, millions$$ ........................................................................................................................................ 54
Table 39. Estimated water transportation ton-miles per gallon and fuel costs and emissions per ton-mile transported, Alaska 2007–2010, 2011$ ....................................................................................... 57
Table 40. Comparison of estimated land transportation modes ton-miles per gallon and fuel costs and emissions per ton-mile transported, Alaska 2007–2010, 2011$ ................................................ 57
Table 41. Comparison of estimated passenger transportation modes passenger-miles per gallon and fuel costs and emissions per passenger-mile transported, Alaska 2007–2010, 2011$ ....................... 57
Table 42. Industry sectors most impacted by a potential carbon emissions tax ........................................ 58
Table 43. Transportation sector fuel use and emissions by industry output ............................................. 59
Table C1. Fuel usage and costs for intra-state scheduled air transportation in Alaska ............................. C-5
Table C2. Fuel usage and costs for intra-state non-scheduled air transportation in Alaska ..................... C-6
Table C3. Fuel usage and costs for exiting scheduled and non-scheduled air transportation in Alaska ........................................................................................................................................................ C-7
Table C4. Fuel usage and costs for entering scheduled and non-scheduled air transportation in Alaska ......................................................................................................................................................... C-8
vi
Acknowledgments
The research reported here was performed under a U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and
Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) grant DTRT06-G-0011, provided through the Alaska
University Transportation Center. Matching funds were provided from the University of Alaska
Foundation’s BP/Conoco Phillips fund and were awarded by then-President Mark Hamilton to the
Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER), University of Alaska Anchorage, for energy-related
programs. We sincerely appreciate these matching funds that made it possible to conduct this research.
Virginia “Ginny” Fay, assistant professor of economics at ISER, was the project director and principal
investigator of this research. The other authors of this report are Dr. Mouhcine Guettabi, assistant
professor of economics, ISER; and Tobias Schwörer and Jeffrey Armagost, research professionals, ISER.
Dr. Stephen Colt, professor of economics, ISER, and Dr. Matthew Berman, professor of economics, ISER,
both provided critical advice and review. Katherine Jackstadt, research professional, ISER, was
instrumental in collecting and organizing data.
This project required extensive data collection and analysis, made possible through the cooperation and
assistance of a number of Alaska state agencies and private companies, including the Alaska Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities, especially Jeff Ottesen, director of Statewide Planning, Catherine
Belfry with the Alaska Marine Highway System, Peter Freer, Statewide Planning, Clint Adler, Chief,
Research Development and Technology Transfer, and Bruce Carr and Steve Silverstein, Alaska Railroad.
Many people improved our understanding of Alaska shipping including Rick Kessler, Gunther Hoock, and
Eddie Walton, Horizon Lines; Renata Benett and Carlos Roldan, TOTE; Paul Friese, Lynden Transport;
Larry Stauffer, Northland Services; and Mark Smith and Justin Charon, Vitus Marine. Holly Baker-Kjostad,
Carlile Transportation Systems, Inc., was tremendously helpful at explaining Alaska trucking as was Sean
O'Hare, Alaska Traffic Company. Roberta Landgren, Inter-Island Ferry Authority, dedicated time to
Alaska Transportation Sector to Assess Energy Use and Impacts of Price Shocks and Climate Change
Legislation, Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, prepared for the
Alaska University Transportation Center pp. 94.
vii
Abstract
This project analyzed the use of energy by Alaska’s transportation sectors to assess the impact of
sudden fuel price changes. We conducted three primary types of analysis: (1) Development of broad
energy use statistics for each transportation sector, such as estimated total annual energy and fuel use,
carbon emissions, fuel use per ton-mile and passenger-mile, and cost of fuel per ton-mile and
passenger-mile. (2) Economic input-output analysis, which estimates the employment and output of air,
rail, truck, and water transportation sectors in the Alaska economy. (3) Adjustment of input-output
modeling assumptions to reflect sudden fuel price changes and/or emissions taxes to estimate the
potential impact of these changes on industry output and employment in the Alaska economy. We
found that Alaska air transportation used approximately 1.9 billion gallons of fuel annually, of which 961
million gallons were used for intra-state and exiting Alaska flights. Water transportation (ships, barges,
and ferries) used 101.8 million gallons of fuel annually, with approximately 84.3 million gallons for intra-
state and exiting segments. Railroad transportation used 5.1 million gallons of fuel annually, and truck
transportation used 8.8 million gallons of fuel annually. The impact of fuel price increases similar to
those that occurred between 2008 and 2010 results in an estimated $456.8 million in value-added losses
to the Alaska economy through cost increases of transportation services. The cost increases, or
equivalent loss in income, to Alaska households are $26.8 million. A carbon emissions tax would have
the greatest impact on the cost of air transportation services, followed by water, trucking, and rail.
1
Executive Summary
This project analyzed energy use by Alaska’s transportation sectors to assess the impact of sudden fuel
price changes or carbon emissions taxes. Inexpensive fossil fuels helped nurture Alaska’s early economic
growth. Over time, key Alaska industries such as fishing, mining, tourism, and transportation, as well as
activities such as subsistence gathering, have grown to depend directly on liquid fossil fuels.
Compared with other states, Alaska is unique in its energy use. In 2010, for example, per capita energy
consumption in Alaska was triple the national average. High energy use makes the Alaska economy
more vulnerable to energy price volatilities and shocks. For state policy makers and industry, such
vulnerability necessitates a better understanding of how energy prices and legislation affect
transportation patterns and efficiency.
The relationship of transportation to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is also important in the context of
ongoing social and political discussion of climate change. Transportation is a major contributor to the
GHG emissions (primarily carbon dioxide, CO2) associated with increased global temperatures; almost
30% of U.S. GHG emissions come from transportation. Additionally, transportation assets and
operations worth billions of dollars are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Freight GHG is
growing at a rate three times that of passenger GHG.
We conducted three primary types of analysis:
(1) Development of broad energy use statistics for each transportation sector. We estimated the
energy and fuel used by the air, water, trucking, and rail transportation sectors. We compared
their fuel intensity to move passengers and freight by estimating their passenger-miles per
gallon of fuel, ton-miles per gallon of fuel, fuel costs per passenger-mile and per ton-mile, and
CO2 emissions per ton-mile and passenger-mile.
(2) Economic input-output analysis, to estimate the employment and output of air, rail, truck, and
water transportation sectors in the Alaska economy.
(3) Adjustment of input-output modeling assumptions to reflect sudden fuel price changes and/or
emissions taxes (which function similarly to an increase in fuel prices) to estimate the potential
impact of these changes on industry output, employment, and Alaska households.
We analyzed the impact of fuel price changes that occurred in 2008 and, by examining income,
employment, and industry output changes in 2010, how the Alaska economy, in the long run, adjusted
to higher prices and potential price volatility.
We estimated that rail is the most efficient form of transportation for moving freight per gallon of fuel,
followed by barge, marine ship, truck, and ferry. In the lower 48 water transportation is consistently
found to be most fuel efficient; Alaska water transportation may be less efficient than rail because of
the less than full back-hauls over long distances. As measured by passenger-miles per gallon of fuel, we
again found that rail transport is the most fuel-efficient, followed by air and ferry. Fuel costs per ton-
mile and passenger-mile followed the same pattern of efficiency (Figures ES1 and 2), as well as CO2
emissions intensity (Figure ES3). Note that ferries provide essential transportation services to locations
not connected by roads. Given the age and configurations of Alaska ferries, the policy of avoiding direct
2
competition with the private sector, and the schedules operated to meet the needs of the traveling
public, it is unlikely that ferries could ever be as fuel-efficient as their private sector counterparts are.
Faced with continued high or increasing fuel prices or carbon legislation, the demand for Alaska Railroad
transportation services could potentially increase with shifts away from trucking. However, because the
distance from Anchorage to Fairbanks and the Kenai Peninsula are relatively short, freight handling
would have to be quite efficient, and wages competitive, to compete with the comparative efficiency of
truck transportation, with its fewer freight intermodal transfers.
Figure ES1. Comparison of fuel use and costs per ton-mile for Alaska transportation, 2007–2010, 2011$
(Sources: U.S. DOT, BTS; U.S. DOE, EIA; U.S. Waterborne Statistics; AMHS; AKRR; IFA; company proprietary information; author calculations)
3
*U.S. average for comparison purposes only.
Figure ES2. Comparison of fuel use and costs per passenger-mile for rail and air, 2007–2010, 2011$ (Sources: U.S. DOT, BTS; U.S. DOE, EIA; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Statistics; AMHS; AKRR; IFA;
Ingram, 2008; company proprietary information; author calculations)
Figure ES3. Comparison of annual emissions by transportation sector, intra-state and exiting only, 2007–2010
Sources: U.S. DOT, BTS; U.S. DOE, EIA; U.S. Waterborne Statistics; AMHS; AKRR; IFA; company proprietary information; author calculations.
-
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2007 2008 2009 2010
Mill
ion
s t
on
s C
O2
Air Water Trucks Rail
4
To connect fuel price-related changes in transportation costs to impacts on the Alaska economy, we
examined several factors, including industry and household transportation uses. Analysis of the Alaska
economy found that the ten industries most dependent on transportation services are:
1. Seafood product preparation and packaging
2. Support activities for oil and gas operations
3. Transport by truck
4. Drilling of oil and gas wells
5. Construction of new nonresidential commercial and health care structures
6. Construction of new residential single-/multi-family housing
7. Electric power generation, transmission, distribution
8. Mining of gold, silver, and other metal ore
9. Food services and drinking places
10. Other state and local government enterprises
Consequently, these industries are the most affected by increases in fuel prices or other changes that
raise the cost of transportation services as an input in their production. Most of these are core
industries in the Alaska economy.
The ten Alaska industries that would be most affected by carbon emissions legislation are:
1. Petroleum refineries
2. Natural gas distribution
3. State and local government electric use
4. Asphalt paving mixture and block manufacturing
5. State and local government passenger
6. Other basic chemical manufacturing
7. Transport by pipeline
8. Plastics material and resin manufacturing
9. Commercial fishing
10. Transport by air
Because of the fuel and carbon intensity of air transportation, airlines have made a sustained effort to
improve air transportation efficiency with increased load factors and increased fuel efficiency of
airplanes. However, despite the increases in fuel efficiency, of the four transportation sectors analyzed,
air transportation continues to be the most vulnerable to emissions legislation impacts.
These ten industries potentially most affected by carbon emissions legislation are also the industries
where increased efficiencies and reduced dependence on fossil fuels could have the most payback, as
measured by avoiding potential emissions tax impacts.
Alaska households at all income levels are also vulnerable to increases in the price of transportation
services as a result of fuel price increases or carbon emissions legislation. Transportation services
include the direct purchases of things like passenger tickets for air, rail, or ferry tickets as well as the
embedded costs of transportation services in groceries or furniture. If Alaska households continued to
5
purchase transportation services at the same level after fuel price increases similar to those that
occurred between 2008 and 2010, these services would cost an additional $26.8 million; an estimated
73% of these cost increases would be paid by households earning over $50,000 annually. In all
likelihood, however, households would reduce their spending on transportation services. Water and
truck transportation services declined the most in our simulation, probably because the majority of
goods Alaska households routinely purchase are transported by water and truck.
In addition to the higher cost of transportation services resulting from higher fuel prices, direct
purchases of refined petroleum products would cost Alaska households an additional $124.1 million if
the households continued to purchase at the same level after fuel price increases similar to those that
occurred between 2008 and 2010. Similar to price increases for transportation services, households with
incomes of $50,000 or higher would absorb an estimated 70% of the refined petroleum price increases.
A recent National Cooperative Freight Research Program (NHCRP) report (Holguín-Veras, José, et al,
2013), found that there is a lack of freight cost data for the various modes of freight transportation, and
that no single source can provide the key cost data for any mode. In most cases, some data are available
in the reports published by public-sector agencies, trade groups, and research universities. However,
because these data were collected in response to the needs of specific projects, they cannot replace
data formally collected as part of regularly scheduled data collection efforts. Publicly available cost data
for air freight and terminals are practically nonexistent. Unfortunately, no single data source could fill all
the gaps in freight cost data. Our data collection efforts and analyses were hampered by this data issue.
Our economic impact simulation did not include utilities, so price increases for space heating and
electricity are not included in these estimates.
6
Introduction
Inexpensive fossil fuels helped drive Alaska’s early economic growth. Over time, key Alaska industries
such as fishing, mining, tourism, and transportation, as well as activities such as subsistence gathering,
have grown to depend directly on liquid fossil fuels including diesel, gasoline, and jet fuels. In addition,
Alaska’s urban service economy has depended heavily on a relatively low cost of living, facilitated by low
energy prices in Southcentral Alaska, and doing business has historically been assisted by cheap
transportation fuels.
These conditions are changing rapidly and perhaps permanently. Although Alaska has a low absolute
energy demand compared with the U.S. average, its per capita energy consumption is the highest in the
country—more than three times the U.S. average (U.S. DOE, EIA, 2012a). A number of factors contribute
to the state’s higher per capita energy consumption. Alaska’s role as a major world air cargo and
transportation hub, oil producer, and marginal refiner substantially increases the per capita use
calculation. Alaska’s remoteness and dispersed populations, along with a limited road system, cause
Alaskans to depend more on air transportation services. The relatively greater dependence of Alaska
industries and residents on energy creates a higher vulnerability to energy price volatilities and shocks.
Such vulnerability means that state policy makers and industry need to better understand how energy
prices and legislation affect transportation patterns and efficiency. Transportation is a major contributor
to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—almost 30% of U.S. GHG emissions—associated with increased
global temperatures, and transportation assets and operations worth billions of dollars are vulnerable to
the impacts of climate change (TRB, 2012a, b). Freight transportation GHG is growing at a rate three
times that of passenger transportation GHG (TRB, 2012b).
This project analyzed the use of energy by Alaska’s transportation sectors to assess what might happen
if fuel prices suddenly change. We conducted three primary types of analysis:
(1) Development of broad energy use statistics for each transportation sector, such as estimated
total annual energy and fuel use, carbon emissions, fuel use per ton-mile and passenger-mile,
and cost of fuel per ton-mile and passenger-mile.
(2) Economic input-output analysis, which estimates the employment and output of air, rail, truck,
and water transportation sectors in the Alaska economy.
(3) Adjustment of input-output modeling assumptions to reflect fuel price shocks/changes and/or
emissions taxes to estimate the potential effect of these changes on industry output and
employment in the Alaska economy.
We analyzed the impact of fuel price changes that occurred in 2008 and, by examining income,
employment, and industry output changes in 2010, we analyzed how the Alaska economy adjusted
to higher prices and potential price volatility in the long run.
The report is organized into background, research approach, and findings and applications sections,
each of which is organized by transportation mode—water, rail, trucking, and air. The findings and
7
applications section is organized by transportation mode, fuel use, economic impact analysis, and
emissions.
Background
Given its geography, Alaska has long relied on aviation and marine transportation to move people and
goods (Figure 1). Freight transport for goods used in Alaska continues to be dominated by marine
transportation, as has been the case since Russian colonization (Gray and Rowe, 1982). Although Alaska
is the largest state by area, its road mileage is the fifth lowest in the nation, leaving 82% of its
communities unconnected to a state road system (Schultz, 2012). The reasons for Alaska’s limited road
system are many, and the state’s unusual dependence on efficient intermodal transportation will no
doubt continue. Extreme weather, rugged terrain, vast distances, low population density, and scattered
islands make future road construction initiatives for connecting communities to the road system difficult
and extremely costly when compared with the number of end users (ADOT&PF, 2008). Residents of
these rural areas not connected to the state’s road system primarily use expensive air transportation for
passenger and consumer goods movement.
In more populated areas, intermodal reliance looks quite different. More than half of the state’s
population resides within the “Railbelt,” the region served by the Alaska Railroad (AKRR) and the state
highway system. This region and a few small urban areas in Southeast Alaska have competing
transportation modes, services, and economies of scale for freight and passengers. The major changes in
Alaska’s transportation system in the last 50 years have primarily been technological improvements
within each transportation mode rather than major system changes.
From an economist’s perspective, understanding Alaska’s highly intermodal transportation system
requires a focus on inputs and outputs that are specific to that system, especially energy resources. The
journey of freight goods to Alaska consumers offers a good illustration. Most of the food, household,
and consumer goods shipped to Alaska from the continental United States begin their journey at
manufacturing plants or distribution facilities. Trucks or trains then transport the goods to ports in either
Tacoma or Seattle, Washington, where they are loaded onto container ships, barges, or roll-on/roll-off
vessels for shipment to Alaska ports. If bound for a community connected to the highway system, the
freight often completes its journey in trucks. Freight also travels north via the Alaska Railroad. Freight
destined for towns off the road system is flown from either Anchorage or Fairbanks to remote
communities and then is either driven by pickup truck if there is a regional road system or loaded onto
smaller aircraft or boats for shipment to outlying villages. Quite often in remote areas, freight makes the
final leg of the journey in sleds pulled by snow machines or on four-wheelers (ADOT&PF, 2008) (Figure
2). Each leg of this journey involves a specific mode and energy resource—nearly always liquid fuel.
8
Figure 1. Alaska transportation system
Figure 2. Passenger delivery in Grayling (Photo credit: S.G. Colt)
9
Alaska’s Transportation Modes
Water Transportation
Alaska depends more heavily on water transportation than does any other state in the continental U.S.
Water transportation is one of the smaller transportation sectors as measured by employment, but it
handles the greatest tonnage of freight entering Alaska. Access to navigable water has been a critical
factor in Alaska’s development, often to the extent of dictating the location of communities. Even the
Interior community of Fairbanks owes its existence to its location on the Chena River. At 33,900 miles,
the shoreline of Alaska is far greater than that of the entire Lower 48. Commercial shippers serve this
extensive coastline as far north as Prudhoe Bay. The Yukon, Tanana, and Kuskokwim Rivers and some of
their tributaries also are important shipping routes for nearby communities (Fried and Keith, 2005).
Ports and harbors within coastal and riverine communities are an integral part of the freight
transportation network. Ports are involved in the transport of forest products, oil and bulk petroleum,
coal, seafood, general cargo, and consumer goods. While overland trucking and rail are important for
delivery within the state, marine and air transport dominate Alaska‘s interstate freight movement
(ADOT&PF, 2008). There are approximately 476 public and private ports and harbors in Alaska—240 in
the southeast region and 236 in the southwest and western regions combined. This figure does not
include barge landing and boat haul-out facilities along the riverine communities of the Kuskokwim and
Yukon Rivers.
The Port of Anchorage (POA) is Alaska’s major port. Annual cargo entering the POA—most of it
originating at the Port of Tacoma—accounts for an estimated 90% of the merchandise used by Alaska
communities west of Cordova (UAA, 2011). Shipments bound for Alaska are nearly 30% of Tacoma’s
total cargo activity. The value of these goods is estimated at well over $1 billion annually (Chase, 2004).
The POA is also a major distribution point for liquid fuels. On average, two-thirds of the fuel for air
carriers at Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport, and two-thirds of the fuel used by the U.S.
military and federal government agencies in Alaska are delivered through the Port. This includes 100% of
the jet fuel for Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (UAA, 2011).
The primary types of marine transportation moving freight and passengers to Alaska include:
Railcar barges operating from Tacoma, Washington, and Prince Rupert, British Columbia;
Ocean vessels providing roll-on/roll-off services for highway trailers operating from Tacoma,
Washington;
Container vessels originating in Tacoma, Washington;
Ferries operating in Southeast, Southcentral, and Southwestern Alaska; and
Barges operating from the Pacific Northwest primarily to Southeast and Southcentral Alaska.
Key transportation providers serving this market are Totem Ocean Trailer Express (TOTE), Horizon Lines,
CN AquaTrain, and Lynden Transportation. Railcar barge movements destined for the Port of Whittier,
Alaska, connect with the Alaska Railroad for movement of goods to Anchorage, Fairbanks, and other
inland destinations. A number of barge companies deliver goods to Southwest and Western Alaska from
10
the Port of Anchorage or from the Pacific Northwest. In addition to fuel delivered from refineries in
Anacortes, Washington, some fuel is delivered from Asia.
The majority of this capacity serves Southcentral and Interior Alaska (and to a lesser extent Southeast
Alaska), accessed primarily through the Ports of Anchorage and Whittier. The Port of Whittier, while
served weekly by Alaska Marine Lines barge service, is predominantly used for delivery of railcar barges
via the AquaTrain connecting with the Alaska Railroad. Based on the schedule and equipment of marine
transportation to Southcentral and Southeast Alaska, the estimated total freight capacity of these
service providers is approximately 4.7 million short tons annually (QGI, 2006). Estimates of imports and
exports by water transportation are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4. For more information on companies
shipping goods to and from Alaska, see Appendix A.
Figure 3. Estimate of imports to Alaska via water transportation, thousands of short tons, 2010
11
Figure 4. Estimate of exports from Alaska via water transportation, thousands of short tons, 2010
Ferries
The Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) operates 11 vessels serving 32 ports that transport more
than 300,000 passengers, 100,000 cars, and 3,400 freight vehicles annually. The AMHS routes stretch
over 3,700 miles serving Southeast Alaska, Prince William Sound, Kodiak Island, and the Aleutian Islands
(Figure 5). The AMHS plays an important role in the economies of these regions and in Alaska’s
transportation system (Metz et al., 2011).
The Inter-Island Ferry Authority (IFA) was formed in 1997 to improve transportation to island
communities in southern Southeast Alaska. The Prince of Wales Island communities of Craig, Klawock,
Thorne Bay, and Coffman Cove joined in a coalition with Wrangell and Petersburg to create the IFA;
Hydaburg joined the group in 2010. The IFA is a public corporation organized under Alaska's Municipal
Port Authority Act and governed by a Board of Directors.
The IFA development plan includes both the Hollis-Ketchikan and Coffman Cove-Wrangell-Petersburg
passenger/vehicle ferry routes. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF)
support for both routes was received in 1998. Alaska's congressional delegation secured funding for the
12
two planned IFA vessels. The M/V Prince of Wales inaugurated daily scheduled round-trip service
between Hollis and Ketchikan in January 2002 (Figure 6). A sister vessel, the M/V Stikine, provided
round-trip service from Coffman Cove to Wrangell and Petersburg for three summers (2006, 2007, and
2008), but this service is now on hold. The IFA ferries currently connect with vessels of the AMHS at
Ketchikan.
Figure 5. Alaska Marine Highway System communities and routes
Source: ADOT&PF, AMHS, 2012
13
Figure 6. Inter-Island Ferry Authority communities and routes
Source: Inter-Island Ferry Authority, 2012
Trucking
Trucking’s share of transportation employment in Alaska is considerably smaller than it is elsewhere in the country. Nationwide, the trucking industry employs over a third of all transportation workers, compared with about 15% in Alaska. But the rest of the nation enjoys a vast network of interstate and secondary highways that connect most communities to the road system (Fried and Keith, 2005; U.S. DOT, 2010). Alaska is connected to the rest of the nation via the Alaska Highway, but does not have the well-developed road system of states in the Lower 48 (Figure 7). As a result, transportation by truck is a smaller portion of the transportation industry in Alaska than it is nationally (Fried and Keith, 2005). In this analysis we estimate freight movement and fuel use for Alaska long-haul trucking only; we do not estimate fuel use by local delivery trucks transporting freight. The companies that conduct these operations and the segments traveled are shown in Table 1.
14
Figure 7. Map of Alaska major roadways
Source: ADOT&PF, 2012
Table 1. Long-haul trucking companies providing services in Alaska
Source: Company websites
Fairbanks to: Alaska to:
Company Seward Soldotna/Homer Valdez Fairbanks SE AK Prudhoe Bay Lower 48/Canada
AirLand X X X X
American Fast Freight X X X
Bob Benson X X
Carlile X X X X X
City Express X X X
Husky Haulers X
Lynden X X X
Midnight Sun X X X
Pacific Alaska Freightways X X X
Sourdough X X
Weaver Brothers X X X
Wilson Brothers X
Anchorage to:
15
Railroads
Two railroads serve Alaska. One is the publically owned Alaska Railroad, and the other is the privately
owned White Pass and Yukon Route Railroad. The Alaska Railroad is an independent corporation serving
ports and communities from the Gulf of Alaska to Fairbanks (Figure 8).
The State of Alaska bought the railroad from the federal government in 1985. The Alaska Railroad is
governed by a seven-member board of directors appointed by the governor of Alaska, and is mandated
to be self-sustaining and responsible for all its financial and legal obligations (ADOT&PF, 2008). Alaska
has 632 total railway miles—611 public miles owned by the Alaska Railroad Corporation and about 21
miles privately owned by the White Pass and Yukon Route Railroad, providing links into Canada.
The Alaska Railroad is a major part of the transportation network, both within the state and between
Alaska and the Lower 48. It connects with rail service from the rest of the U. S. and Canada via its barge
facilities in Whittier, and ships coal and naphtha to Asia via the Port of Seward. The railroad carries both
passengers and freight, but large volumes of a variety of freight account for most of its operating
revenue (Verrelli, 2012). In recent years, petroleum products hauled from the North Pole refinery to the
Anchorage area have made up much of the railroad’s freight revenue. The Alaska Railroad carries
several hundred thousand tons of coal per year between Healy and Seward for overseas export to Asia
and South America; it hauls coal from Healy to Fairbanks and a significant portion of the gravel used in
the Anchorage bowl from the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. The railroad can carry these large volumes of
freight more efficiently and at lower cost than trucks can (ICF International, 2009; Tuck and Killorin,
2004).
The Alaska Railroad provides passenger service to tourists during the summer season. The railroad is
part of the tourist infrastructure, providing access to Denali National Park and other destinations.
The White Pass and Yukon Route Railroad is a narrow-gauge railroad that operates solely for tourism,
between Skagway, Alaska, and Carcross, Yukon, each year from May to September. A wholly owned
subsidiary of Tri-White Corporation based in Toronto, Ontario, the White Pass and Yukon Route
generated $18.2 million in 2006, with 431,249 passenger trips (ADOT&PF, 2008). Though this railroad
was originally developed to serve Yukon gold mining, and served as an ore-carrying railroad as recently
as the 1970s, the owners recently expressed limited interest in resuming the railroad‘s ore-carrying
capacity (ADOT&PF, 2008).
16
Figure 8. Alaska Railroad route map
Source: Alaska Railroad, 2012. The red line is the Alaska Railroad between Fairbanks and Seward.
Aviation
Airports, seaplane bases, and heliports located in remote geographic regions of Alaska are critical to the
movement of passengers and freight within the state and to and from other national and international
destinations. The Alaska Aviation System Plan (ADOT&PF, 2011) included an assessment of the
contribution of the aviation industry to the Alaska economy (Northern Economics, Inc., 2009, 2011). The
aviation industry, as defined in the statewide analysis, includes all the businesses and organizations
located at an airport. Spending by these on-site entities supports local businesses and employs Alaskans
for its year-round operations, contributing $3.5 billion directly and indirectly to the state’s economy.
This dollar amount equals approximately 8% of the state’s $42 billion 2007 gross state product (GSP), a
40% higher share than the aviation industry’s contribution to the U.S. economy. The analysis also
estimated that the aviation industry creates more than 27,000 on-site jobs and almost 20,000 off-site
jobs, which represents about 10% of jobs in Alaska—again over 40% more than the national percentage
of jobs in aviation.
17
The primary reasons for the prominence of the aviation industry in the Alaska economy are the state’s
large geographic area, remoteness, and lack of connected roads. According to the 2011 Alaska Aviation
System Plan, 82% of the communities in Alaska are not connected to a highway or road system and rely
on air service to transport goods and passengers. As a result, the state has a large aviation network, with
10,000 pilots operating in 700 registered airports and 1,200 airstrips across more than three million
square miles (Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis, 2012).
According to a 2009 economic study (Northern Economics, Inc., 2009), the average number of annual
enplanements per capita for off-road communities in Alaska is 14.6, eight times higher than the number
of annual enplanements per capita for even the next highest state—Idaho at 1.8—and more than 30
times higher than the lowest comparison group—Montana at 0.5 enplanements per person per year.
The number of freight pounds per capita for Alaska is 39 times higher than that of rural communities in
the next-highest surveyed state. Alaska communities in the study averaged 1,096 pounds of airfreight
per capita in 2007, while rural communities in Oregon averaged 28 pounds. Rural communities in
Montana averaged just 2 pounds of airfreight per person in 2007. Alaska, and especially remote rural
communities not connected to roads, clearly depends on air to transport passengers and goods.
These transportation services are provided by 271 commercial operators in Alaska and over 10,000
licensed pilots, of which more than 2,800 are commercial pilots. Commercial carriers fly over 835,000
hours annually, including 420,000 scheduled flight hours and 415,000 unscheduled flight hours (Alaska
Air Carriers Association, 2012). Alaska has a fleet of 10,947 aircraft, of which 40% are based in
Anchorage and 85% are single-engine fixed wing. Anchorage records 1.6 million landings annually,
including 2.8 million metric tons of cargo, making it the third highest among world airports in cargo
volume (Alaska Air Carriers Association, 2012).
Research Approach
This analysis necessitated the collection of a considerable amount of proprietary data from
transportation companies. To the extent possible, we collected information for the years 2006 through
2010 directly from marine shipping, barge, and trucking companies. We obtained aviation data from the
U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), Bureau
of Transportation Statistics (BTS). We downloaded aviation data from the RITA website and used that
data to estimate fuel consumption and costs by aviation fleet type (U.S. DOT, RITA, BTS, 2010).
The statistics sections of the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) and the Alaska Railroad
Corporation provided us with data. The Alaska Inter-Island Ferry Authority (IFA) also provided requested
data. The IFA and AMHS data were the most complete data we received.
For barges and trucking, only one company in each subsector provided data. We used these data in
conjunction with secondary data to model the barge and trucking subsectors.
A recent National Cooperative Freight Research Program (NHCRP) report (Holguín-Veras, José, et al,
2013, found that there is a lack of freight cost data for the various modes of freight transportation, and
that no single source can provide the key cost data for any mode. In most cases, some data are available
18
in the reports published by public-sector agencies, trade groups, and research universities. However,
because these data were collected in response to the needs of specific projects, they cannot replace
data formally collected as part of regularly scheduled data collection efforts. Publicly available cost data
for air freight and terminals are practically nonexistent. Unfortunately, no single data source could fill all
the gaps in freight cost data. Our data collection efforts and analyses were hampered by this data issue.
For each transportation mode, we attempted to estimate fuel use and cost as a total and per ton-mile
and/or passenger-mile, as applicable. A ton-mile is defined as one ton (2,000 pounds) transported one
statute mile. Ton-miles are computed by multiplying the net weight of the carried freight times the
segment mileage for a shipment. For example, if the Alaska Railroad carries 26,280 passengers on the
112-mile Anchorage-to-Seward rail segment and uses 81,715 gallons of fuel, then the passenger-miles
per gallon of fuel is 36:
(26,280 * 112)/81,715 = 36 passenger-miles per gallon
Similarly, if the railroad moves 2,361,900 tons of gravel on the 55-mile Wasilla-to-Anchorage rail
segment, using 199,164 gallons of fuel (because the cars travel empty one way), then the ton-miles per
gallon of fuel is 652:
(2,361,900 * 55)/ 199,164 = 652 ton-miles per gallon of fuel
We did not include the weight of the ship, plane, train, or truck in making these estimates. However, the
weight difference and fuel use intensity are reflected in the average fuel-use-per-mile statistics that we
calculate. Fuel and energy use while in ports, airports, rail yards, and truck depots are not included in
this analysis. Fuel use is for the transportation of freight and passengers. For each transportation mode,
we also calculated total CO2 emissions and emissions per ton-mile and/or passenger-mile (U.S. DOE, EIA,
2012b).
We converted all fuel prices to 2011 dollars using the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) as reported by the
Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (ADLWD, 2012).
Details on each transportation sector’s data and modeling are presented in the following sections.
Because of the considerable differences in the data provided and the subsequent need to construct
models to develop final datasets, the methods sections differ considerably in length and detail. The
precision of the data also varies considerably, and readers should note the limitations of the data when
using the results.
Water Transportation
Marine Ships
Marine shipping companies provided monthly data on northbound and southbound tonnage and gallons
of fuel used during 2006 through 2010. One company provided monthly fuel prices per barrel, while the
other provided the total annual cost of fuel. These data were used to estimate marine shipping fuel
prices and to calculate ton-miles of freight moved per gallon of fuel and the cost of fuel per ton-mile. To
19
avoid potential release of proprietary data, we present marine shipping results aggregated or as part of
other water transportation statistics.
Barges
In contrast with other transportation modes where we received considerable information from a
number of companies—or the data were publically available through government reporting
requirements—only one barge company provided an aggregation of monthly data for the movement of
freight. We used this barge company data as a prototype to construct a barge fuel-use model. We
estimated fuel use for regional barge shipments by taking the number of additional barge trips by travel
segments from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ published Waterborne Statistics of freight movement
by port (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2012a, b) and published freight schedules of barge companies
serving Alaska. We used the prototype barge company’s information in conjunction with U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers data to estimate types of tugs and barges used and their fuel consumption per mile
traveled. We made these estimates in the absence of publically available or proprietary data, but we
believe they are reasonable, carefully developed estimates. Still, they are merely estimates. Details on
these calculations are provided in Appendix B.
Ferries
We used annual reports of the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) to estimate monthly data on
northbound and southbound passengers and freight in between ports. The Inter-Island Ferry Authority
also provided monthly data for 2006 through 2010. We estimated short tons of freight based on the
average weight per vehicle class and the number of vehicles reported in different vehicle classes in the
AMHS annual reports. Fuel cost information came directly from fuel purchase invoices. Fuel invoice
information included the date and location of the fuel purchase and the receiving vessel. We allocated
fuel consumption between ports based on the mileage between ports of a particular vessel port of call.
Finally, we were able to estimate monthly fuel consumption and fuel cost in between ports, which was
matched to the monthly vessel port-to-port data. We have used the resulting dataset to calculate ton-
miles of freight moved per gallon of fuel and the cost of fuel per ton-mile for shipping by ferry, as well as
passenger-mile per gallon of fuel.
Recognizing the differences in ferry configuration and fuel usage when allocating fuel to freight and
passengers, we separated the fleet into four groups: (1) high-speed catamarans, (2) Aleutian chain, (3)
southern Southeast day boats (IFA and Lituya), and (4) the remaining mainline ferries. Our consultation
with a number of marine architects and review of the literature indicated little agreement on how to
allocate fuel used to carry freight and passengers on mixed-use ferries. Based on these discussions and
the literature review, we settled on 90% fuel allocated to passengers and 10% fuel allocated to freight
on catamarans and day boats, and a 50%-50% split between freight and passengers on main line and
Aleutian chain ferries.
20
Land Transportation
Railroad
Though the Alaska Railroad provided data on tonnage, passengers, and gallons of fuel used by departure
and destination for 2006 through 2010, it did not provide fuel cost information. As a result, we
substituted Anchorage refinery fuel prices reported by the Oil Price Information Service (OPIS, multiple
years) for the missing fuel price information. We also did not receive fuel cost/price information from
Alaska trucking companies, so we used the same OPIS prices for a substitute. Thus, while our estimates
of fuel prices per gallon are not accurate, they are comparable for rail and truck, which are the two
primary competitors for land shipping in the Alaska Railbelt. Our results compare the relative efficiency
of freight movement by the two modes, rather than the definitive cost over the period of analysis (GAO,
2011; Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2013).
Trucking
As was true of barge companies, only one long-haul trucking company shared data on tonnage and fuel
use by destination. We estimated market share and expanded the data for an all-Alaska tonnage and
fuel use evaluation. We used those data to calculate ton-miles of freight moved per gallon of fuel and
the cost of fuel per ton-mile for shipping by truck.
Aviation
To estimate fuel used in aviation, we initially attempted to use the U.S. Department of Transportation,
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) data, available for download at www.transtats.bts.gov. Our
initial analysis was based on three BTS data sources: T100 segment data, Schedule T2, and schedule P-
12(a) (U.S. DOT, RITA, BTS, 2012 a, b, c and d). T100 segment data show the monthly number of flights
for a city-pair, also called a flight segment. The T100 data are not based on a sample or survey; they
represent a 100% census. All carriers except those with $20 million or less in annual operating revenue
submit quarterly balance sheets and fuel reports. Schedule T2 provides quarterly air carrier traffic and
capacity statistics by aircraft type and carrier, including the amount of aircraft fuel issued (not used).
Schedule P-12(a) shows monthly fuel consumption and fuel cost by carrier, but does not disaggregate
fuel consumption and cost by each carrier’s aircraft types.
First, we combined ten years of T100 segment data from 2000 to 2010 for flights originating in Alaska,
thus including flights within Alaska and the first segment of flights originating in Alaska for out-of-state
destinations. The data included both scheduled and unscheduled flights. We then followed the same
procedure to combine the same ten years for Schedule T2 and Schedule P-12(a).
In an effort to link the T100, T2, and P-12(a), we tried to estimate fuel used per T100 segment.
Therefore, we first used the T2 data to calculate carrier and aircraft-group-specific fuel efficiencies per
mile and per hour of flight for each quarter of the year between 2000 and 2010. To do so, we applied
the mean quarterly gallons per mile flown or hour flown for each carrier by aircraft type. For cases with
missing data on the amount of fuel issued, we applied different approaches, depending on whether we
knew the aircraft type and/or aircraft group.
21
We calculated fuel cost per segment based on Schedule P-12(a). We divided the monthly carrier-specific
fuel cost by the monthly carrier-specific fuel amount in gallons, which equals the nationwide monthly
average fuel price per carrier. We then applied this carrier-specific monthly fuel price to the fuel
consumption per segment to arrive at the fuel cost per segment.
We tested our model results by comparing them with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy
Information Administration (EIA), State Energy Data System (SEDS) estimate for Alaska aviation fuel use.
This comparison indicated that our model estimates using publically available, unlinked data were about
an order of magnitude larger. Others have identified similar difficulties using BTS data as well as the
non-existence of air freight cost data (Holguín-Veras, José, et al., 2013; Peeters et al., 2005; Siebe, 2012;
Lee et al., 2001). Peeters et al. (2005) argues that fuel consumption data from BTS do not take into
account the fact that planes load additional reserve fuel, which is issued but not used. Lee et al. (2001)
mentioned this as well. Thus, the variable AIRCRAFT_FUELS_921 represents the gallons of fuel issued but
not necessarily used. Peeters et al. (2005) write that in order to use the BTS Schedule T-2 data alone,
one has to correct for fuel reserves. The authors note that piston-engine aircrafts carry about three
hours of reserve fuel, while jets take extra fuel for about 200 nautical miles (230 miles). These factors
exacerbate the problems of matching the unlinked fuel used (T-2), segments flown (T100), and fuel cost
(P-12[a]) datasets. In Alaska, the problem of discrepancy between the reported fuel issued and fuel used
is made worse by the fact that aircraft almost exclusively fuel in the large airports of Anchorage and
Fairbanks and very rarely refuel at airports in rural Alaska, where fuel is often more than double the
price (Cadavoa, 2010). Also, additional fuel beyond that used in flight and carried for reserve is often
transported to rural fuel depots, where it is stored in the airline’s fuel cache for emergencies and other
purposes, like heating airline-owned facilities.
Our fallback for estimating fuel use was to use data from the U.S. DOE EIA SEDS. With this data, we
estimated total fuel aviation use, but we used BTS data to allocate the fuel to scheduled and
unscheduled intra-state flights and flights exiting Alaska by carrier types—passenger, cargo, mixed
passenger and cargo, and seaplanes. We used the estimate of fuel used by exiting flights to estimate fuel
used by scheduled and unscheduled flights entering Alaska. The variables and data used from specific
data sources are shown in Appendix C.
While this method provides a more reasonable estimate of fuel used by different carrier configurations,
the level of aggregation is too great to estimate fuel use per ton-mile or per passenger-mile, which does
not facilitate a comparison of energy efficiency or costs across transportation modes. To find potential
proxies, we consulted the literature.
Economic Impact Analysis of Fuel Price Changes on the Alaska Economy
The foundation of modern input-output analysis is based on work started in the 1930s by Wassily
Leontief (Leontief, 1936, 1966). Economic theory abstractly describes the relationships between prices
and quantities with respect to supply and demand in a market economy. The ways that these
relationships unfold in reality, however, are based on innumerable individual transactions involving a
vast array of inputs, products, and services. By collecting, aggregating, and tabulating detailed industrial
22
output data into a matrix, in which the output of every industry may serve as the input to a variety of
other industries in an economy, Leontief created an analytic tool that bridges the gap between the
abstraction of economic theory and the empirical detail found in economic data.
Table 2 provides an illustration of this input-output transactions tool. The columns represent the variety
of industrial input requirements (demand), and the rows represent the distribution of industrial output
(supply). In addition to the square industry-by-industry transaction matrix (producing sectors), the
model includes a vector at the bottom for value added and a vector along the right-hand side of the
matrix for final demand. The value-added vector comprises primary factor inputs to production, such as
capital and labor services. The final demand vector comprises the components that make up gross
domestic product (GDP): consumption, investment, imports, exports, and government. Because of the
basic accounting premise that all outputs in an economy must equal all inputs, the total output for a
given industry can be calculated as either the column sum of intermediate inputs and value added, or as
the row sum of intermediate and final demand for its output. In addition, total value added (the row
sum of the vector), which represents all the income in the economy, must equal total final demand (the
column sum of the vector), which represents the output of the economy.
Table 2. Illustrative input-output transactions table (in millions of dollars)
Producing Sector Consuming Sector
Industry A
Industry B
Industry C
Exports Households Total Final Demand
Total Sales (A+B+C+TFD)
Producing Sectors
Industry A 10 5 3 1 12 13 31
Industry B 3 9 8 1 4 5 25
Industry C 8 4 6 3 3 6 24
Primary Inputs
Value Added 10 7 7 0 8 8 32
Total Inputs 31 25 24 5 27 32 112
The values in the matrix and the vector represent dollar transaction values, each comprising a price
component and a quantity component. The nominal transaction values in the matrix and the vector can
be converted into coefficients by dividing each column value by the value of total industry output. The
calculated coefficients represent the proportions of inputs required to produce a single unit of output,
and each column sums to one. This matrix of coefficient values, known as the matrix or the direct
requirements matrix, can be thought of as the production "recipes" for each industry. When viewed as a
whole, the entire matrix provides a snapshot of the current technological state of an economy. For more
details on input-output modeling and terminology, see Appendix D.
IMPLAN
IMPLAN (IMpact analysis for PLANning) is a system for conducting economic analyses based on national
input-output (I/O) structural matrices (MIG, Inc., 2011). IMPLAN was originally developed by the U.S.
23
Forest Service and has gained wide acceptance in a variety of impact assessment applications. In
addition to the U.S. Forest Service, users of IMPLAN have included the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
National Park Service, the Soil Conservation Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the
Bureau of Land Management, universities, and numerous state and regional planning agencies.
The basic IMPLAN model performs an I/O analysis for a given region in terms of as many as 509
economic sectors (257 for Alaska), roughly corresponding to NAIC (North American Industry
Classification) codes. In addition, IMPLAN allows the analyst to add custom sectors for a particular
application. Impacts are specified in terms of output, income, and employment.
The economic impacts estimated by input-output models reflect the direct expenditures of a particular
sector (study sector) and account for the “ripple effect” of economic activity resulting from that sector.
Employees of the study sector and local businesses from which the study sector purchased goods and
services continue to spend at least some percentage of these monies locally, spurring additional
economic impacts. The initial expenditure essentially spurs a chain of indirect and induced spending.
Input-output models use a series of “multipliers” to estimate the economic impacts associated with
each initial dollar of direct spending. We use IMPLAN to analyze how the fuel price changes that
occurred from 2009 to 2010 (approximately 28%) affected the Alaska economy as depicted in 2008
before the price increases. To the extent possible, we analyzed transportation fuel prices from 2006 to
2010, because that period witnessed dramatic changes in prices (Figure 9).
Figure 9. Annual crude oil prices, 2000–2012
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Cushing, OK WTI Spot Price FOB (Dollars per Barrel).
Findings and Applications
Fuel Use and Efficiency by Mode
Water Transportation
Marine ships and barges carry an estimated 146–186 ton-miles per gallon of fuel (a ton-mile is the
movement of one ton of freight one mile); they are well laden despite the fact that they primarily carry
24
freight into Alaska and return considerably less laden. Despite already reflecting relatively higher fuel
efficiency per ton-mile, the data indicate increasing efforts to move freight even more efficiently as fuel
prices increased in 2008 (Winebrake, James J. and James J. Corbett, 2010) . However, because of the
confidentiality of proprietary data, specific details cannot be presented. Table 3 and Table 4 show our
estimates of average fuel use, costs, and fuel use per ton-mile of freight shipped for marine ships and
barges.
25
Table 5 shows regional barge fuel use estimates from our barge fuel-use model.
Marine Ships
Table 3. Estimated fuel usage and costs for freight movement by marine vessels 2006–2010, 2011$
Average ship miles per gallon 0.02
Average ship ton-miles per gallon 146
Average fuel costs per mile $102
Average fuel costs per ton-mile $0.012 Source: OPIS Anacortes fuel prices, author calculations.
Barges
Table 4. Estimated tons, fuel usage and costs for freight movement by barge 2006–2012, 2011$
Average barge miles per gallon 0.04
Average barge ton-miles per gallon 186
Average fuel costs per mile $51
Average fuel costs per ton-mile $0.016 Source: Marine fuel prices, U.S. Waterborne statistics, author calculations.
26
Table 5. Estimated regional fuel usage for freight movement by barge 2006–2012, 2011$
* Inland waterways figures are minimum estimates based on 2010 U.S. Census population. Sources: U.S. Waterborne Statistics, multiple years; Fisheries Economics Data Program, Monthly Marine Fuel Prices, http://www.psmfc.org/efin/data/fuel.html, author calculations.
Ferries
Ferries serve as part of the Alaska highway system in locations where no roads exist—primarily
Southeast Alaska, Prince William Sound, and the Aleutian chain. They also connect Southeast and
Southcentral Alaska to the Lower 48 highway system, with voyages to and from Bellingham,
Washington, and Prince Rupert, British Columbia. Ferries are constructed to handle rough seas and have
traditionally carried passenger vehicles and freight—and both those factors reduce their fuel-use
efficiency. However, ferries have always been under pressure not to compete with the private sector for
freight, so their tariffs are set to be non-competitive, and as a result, they primarily carry freight cargo to
smaller communities where barge service is not economical. So it can be expected that the fuel and
Total fuel use (gallons) 11,946,490 10,455,345 10,150,310 10,450,611
Total fuel cost (2011$) $30,493,483 $38,107,148 $22,896,161 $28,345,120
Total miles 726,196 666,298 640,738 645,955
Miles/gallon 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
Fuel cost per mile $42 $57 $36 $44
Ton miles/gallon 18 18 20 20
Fuel cost per ton-mile $2.28 $3.28 $1.74 $2.18
Ton miles (freight) 88,844,314 78,258,524 77,939,792 80,028,674
Passenger miles 68,401,657 65,009,076 61,092,295 64,055,703
Passenger miles/ gallon 11 11 12 13
Fuel cost per passenger-mile $3.81 $5.25 $2.81 $3.45
Passenger % utilization (AMHS) 24% 27% 28% 28%
29
Table 7. Estimated tons, fuel usage, and costs for freight movement for the Alaska Marine Highway System and Inter-Island Ferry Authority 2007–2010, 2011$
Average miles per gallon
0.06
Average ton-miles per gallon
19
Average fuel costs per mile of ship operation $45
Average fuel costs per ton-mile
$2.37 Sources: ADOT&PF, AMHS; IFA; U.S. DOE, EIA; author calculations.
Table 8. Estimated tons, fuel usage, and costs for passenger movement by the Alaska Marine Highway System and Inter-Island Ferry Authority, 2007–2010, 2011$
Average miles per gallon
0.06
Average passengers-miles per gallon 12
Average fuel costs per mile of ship operation $45
Average fuel costs per passengers-mile $3.83 Sources: ADOT&PF, AMHS; IFA; U.S. DOE, EIA; author calculations.
30
Table 9. Annual passengers and freight by segment type for the Alaska Marine Highway System and Inter-Island Ferry Authority segment types 2007–2010, 2011$
Sources: ADOT&PF, AMHS; IFA; U.S. DOE, EIA; author calculations.
Land Transportation
Railroad
The Alaska Railroad provides freight and passenger service along the corridor from Fairbanks to Seward
and Whittier. Approximately a third of the tonnage of the railroad’s freight service was refined
petroleum products in 2007. However, with production declines at the Flint Hills refinery, petroleum
products’ share of total freight has declined. The railroad showed ton-mile per gallon freight efficiencies
from 256 to 311 tons per mile during the study period (Table 10, Table 12, and Figure 10). The national
rail service company, CSX, advertises almost 500 ton-miles per gallon, but Lower 48 trains and segment
distances are considerably longer (CSX, 2012). Also, it is not clear whether CSX calculations include only
Main Line $19,560,866 $23,753,623 $15,423,486 $18,605,367
Total $30,493,483 $38,107,148 $22,896,161 $28,345,120
Aleutian 93,534 69,679 75,069 76,152
Catamaran 112,865 117,281 85,799 93,996
IIF 58,078 49,800 49,806 45,761
Main Line 461,719 429,538 430,064 430,046
Total 726,196 666,298 640,738 645,955
Total Passengers (Count)
Total Freight (Short Tons)
Gallons per Segment
Fuel Cost (2011$)
Statute Miles per Segment
31
full loads and exclude empty back hauls; empty back hauls reduce the ton-miles per gallon for the Alaska
Railroad.
Table 10. Fuel usage and costs for freight movement by the Alaska Railroad 2007–2010, 2011$
Fuel Ton-mile/ Fuel cost/
Year Short tons Gallons Cost gallon ton-mile
2007 6,592,506 4,342,932 $11,135,924 260 $0.010
2008 6,897,737 3,241,907 $11,083,097 288 $0.012
2009 6,626,029 3,618,137 $8,341,123 311 $0.007
2010 7,069,781 3,993,404 $11,042,024 256 $0.011
Average 6,796,513 3,799,095 $10,400,542 279 $0.010 Source: Alaska Railroad data, OPIS Anchorage fuel prices, author calculations.
Table 11. Alaska Railroad freight transport in short tons, petroleum and all other goods
Source: Alaska Railroad data, multiple years.
Figure 10. Alaska Railroad freight transport in short tons, petroleum and all other goods (AOG), 2007–2009
Source: Alaska Railroad data
Petroleum AOG Total
2007 2,202,162 4,390,344 6,592,506
2008 1,911,157 4,986,580 6,897,737
2009 1,657,763 5,179,170 6,836,933
2010 1,253,894 5,815,887 7,069,781
Short tons
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
2007 2008 2009 2010
Petroleum AOG
32
The estimates of fuel costs per mile and fuel costs per ton-mile (Table 12) are based on OPIS Anchorage
refinery prices, because the Alaska Railroad provided no fuel price information. Most likely the OPIS
prices are lower than the railroad’s actual fuel costs, but because it transports refined fuels for refineries
and uses large quantities, the railroad may negotiate prices that are relatively close to OPIS wholesale
prices. Also, in the absence of actual data, the OPIS prices are the most appropriate substitute. But the
fuel costs provided in Table 12 might not be accurate, and should not be compared with other modes,
like ferries, that provided actual price information.
Table 12. Average fuel usage and costs for freight movement by the Alaska Railroad 2007–2010, 2011$
Average miles per gallon 0.13
Average rail ton-miles per gallon 279
Average fuel costs per mile $21
Average fuel costs per ton-mile $0.01 Source: Alaska Railroad data, OPIS Anchorage fuel prices, author calculations.
The Alaska Railroad averages approximately 100 to 150 passenger-miles per gallon of fuel (Table 13 and
Table 14). The low end of the range is approximately 40% higher than Amtrak’s national average, and
the upper end is almost double (Ghanta, 2010). The pull contracts for the cruise ship companies taking
visitors to Denali National Park and Preserve provide good utilization rates, as these are relatively long,
well-used passenger trains.
Table 13. Fuel usage and costs for passenger movement by the Alaska Railroad 2007–2010, 2011$
Fuel Passenger-mile/
gallon Fuel cost/
Passenger-mile Year Passengers Gallons Cost
2007 670,868 1,220,758 $3,092,549 102 $0.02
2008 675,626 1,228,142 $4,879,996 123 $0.03
2009 586,149 1,195,411 $2,811,418 148 $0.01
2010 516,480 1,149,241 $3,158,125 107 $0.03
Average 612,281 1,198,388 $3,485,522 120 $0.02 Source: Alaska Railroad data, OPIS Anchorage fuel prices, author calculations.
Table 14. Average fuel usage and costs for passenger movement by the Alaska Railroad 2007–2010, 2011$
Average miles per gallon 0.2
Average rail passengers-miles per gallon 120
Average fuel costs per mile $15
Average fuel costs per passengers-mile $0.02 Source: Alaska Railroad data, OPIS Anchorage fuel prices, author calculations.
Trucks
Our truck fuel-use estimates are based on limited information and should be used with caution. The fuel
use per mile reported in Table 15 is higher than the national average of 6 miles per gallon and the
average of 59 ton-miles per gallon (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2010). These higher Alaska fuel
use rates most likely can be attributed to Alaska’s colder conditions and mountainous terrain, and to
road systems that are not comparable to Lower 48 interstate highways.
33
Table 15. Estimated fuel usage and costs by long-haul trucks, 2011$
Average truck miles per gallon 4.5
Average truck ton-miles per gallon 48
Average fuel costs per mile $0.61
Average fuel costs per ton-mile $0.06 Source: OPIS Anchorage fuel prices, author calculations.
As was true for the Alaska Railroad, we did not receive any fuel cost information for trucks, so we
substituted OPIS Anchorage refinery prices for truck diesel prices. Despite the fact that some companies
haul fuel for refineries, the numerous trucking companies most likely purchase fuel in smaller quantities
than the railroad does, so this fuel price estimate is more likely to be low for trucks than for the railroad.
As a result, truck fuel costs should not be compared with those of other modes and compared cautiously
with those of the railroad.
Aviation
Table 16 provides information on estimated fuel used for scheduled and unscheduled intra-state flights,
scheduled and non-scheduled flights exiting Alaska, and scheduled and unscheduled flights entering
Alaska for the years 2005 through 2010 (additional details are available in Appendix D). The information
includes the total reported fuel consumed, total fuel costs, estimated price of fuel per gallon, number of
passengers, tons of freight and mail, and fuel used for the four primary carrier types providing service to
Alaska markets and freight carriers traveling through Alaska.
The total fuel used by the aviation sector ranged from a low of approximately 1.6 billion gallons in 2009
during the recession to 2.4 billion gallons in 2007 prior to the recession and the dramatic increase in
crude oil prices. Of this total, in 2010, scheduled intra-state flights used approximately 1.5%, non-
scheduled intra-state flights used 0.4%, flights exiting Alaska used an estimated 48.8%, and flights
entering Alaska used 49.3%. Cargo flights entering and exiting Alaska used about 10 times the amount of
fuel as passenger flights entering and exiting Alaska.
As discussed in the methods section, the distance information is the summation of segments traveled,
but does not account for the number of times each segment was traveled. As a result, it is not possible
to calculate passenger-miles or ton-miles per gallon of fuel or fuel costs per mile, passenger-mile, or ton-
mile for aviation.
Airlines spend 10% or more of their operating budgets on fuel purchases, making fuel the air industry’s
second largest expense category, after labor cost (Wells, 2011; Ghanta, 2010). A literature review on
fuel consumption by air carriers shows increasing fuel conservation efforts among air carriers. In the 20-
year period from 1970 to 1990, fuel efficiency nearly doubled, increasing from 26.2 seat-miles per gallon
(SMPG) in 1970 to 49 SMPG in 1989. In the 1990s, fuel efficiency reached 65–80 SMPG. Approaches to
minimize fuel consumption include continuous descents from altitude, increased monitoring of fuel use,
and improved effectiveness of aircraft loading (Peeters et al., 2005; Stolzer, 2002; Wells, 2011; Ghanta,
2010; Lee et al., 2001). Based on this review, we used 50 passenger-miles per gallon of fuel for
comparison with other modes.
34
Table 16. Fuel usage and costs for intra-state scheduled air transportation in Alaska 2005–2010, 2011$
Notes: Numbers in black are directly from the BTS and EIA data. Blue numbers were calculated from BTS and EIA data. Sources: U.S. DOT, BTS; U.S. DOE, EIA; FAA; author calculations.
2007 2008 2009 2010
Intra-state scheduled
Total gallons 30,684,229 31,457,698 27,330,122 27,846,200
CO2 emissions [mt] 11,539,361 9,386,276 7,378,581 8,929,685
35
Intermodal Fuel Use Comparisons
As previously stated, the variability of available data makes direct comparisons of energy use difficult,
but we can use our information to gain a broad understanding of the relative differences in fuel use
across the modes to help illustrate differences in vulnerabilities to fuel price changes and potential
emissions taxes. Despite the limitation of the data, Figure 11,Figure 12, and Figure 13 and Table 17
provide “overview” comparisons of fuel used and the estimated costs of fuel for the four travel modes
analyzed from 2007 to 2010.
Table 18 through Table 20 and Figure 14 and Figure 15 compare estimated direct fuel use and costs
across the four modes analyzed. Again, because of lack of precision, comparisons should be used in the
context of general “ranges of magnitude.” This is especially true for rail and trucking, where we received
no fuel price information. In the absence of this information, we substituted OPIS Anchorage refinery
diesel prices (as discussed earlier). So these comparisons are imprecise for rail and trucking to the extent
to which the two pay different mark-ups from wholesale refinery prices.
Figure 11. Comparison of annual fuel use, 2007–2010
Sources: U.S. DOT, BTS; U.S. DOE, EIA; U.S. Waterborne Statistics; AMHS; AKRR; IFA; company proprietary information; author calculations. The 2010 truck data are used in all four years in place of missing data.
(250)
250
750
1,250
1,750
2,250
2,750
2007 2008 2009 2010
Mill
ion
s
Air Water Trucks Rail (freight) Rail (passenger)
36
Figure 12. Comparison of annual fuel costs, 2007–2010, 2011$
Sources: U.S. DOT, BTS; U.S. DOE, EIA; U.S. Waterborne Statistics; AMHS; AKRR; IFA; company proprietary information; author calculations. The 2010 truck data are used in all four years in place of missing data.
Figure 13. Comparison of annual fuel prices per gallon, 2007–2010, 2011$
Sources: U.S. DOT, BTS; U.S. DOE, EIA; U.S. Waterborne Statistics; AMHS; AKRR; IFA; company proprietary information; author calculations. The 2010 truck data are used in all four years in place of missing data.
$-
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
2007 2008 2009 2010
Mill
ion
s, 2
01
1$
Air Water Trucks Rail (freight) Rail (passenger)
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Air (Intra, scheduled)
Air (Intra, unscheduled)
Air (exiting)
Water
Trucks
Rail
37
Table 17. Estimated transportation fuel use and costs, Alaska 2007–2010
Notes: Numbers in black are directly from the BTS and EIA data. Blue numbers were calculated from BTS and EIA data. Total weight includes freight, mail, and passengers. Aircraft type numbers are T100 data codes. Fuel prices in blue are estimates based on OPIS price data and limited proprietary data provided. Sources: U.S. DOT, BTS; U.S. DOE, EIA; U.S. Waterborne Statistics; AMHS; AKRR; IFA; company proprietary information; author calculations.
Estimared average price [$/gal] $2.36 $3.42 $2.21 $2.68
38
Table 18. Comparison of fuel use and costs per ton-mile for Alaska water transportation, 2007–2010, 2011$
Sources: U.S. DOT, BTS; U.S. DOE, EIA; U.S. Waterborne Statistics; AMHS; AKRR; IFA; company proprietary information; author calculations.
Table 19. Comparison of fuel use and costs per ton-mile for rail and trucking, 2007–2010, 2011$
Sources: U.S. DOT, BTS; U.S. DOE, EIA; AKRR; company proprietary information; author calculations.
Table 20. Comparison of fuel use and costs per passenger-mile for rail, ferry and air, 2007–2010, 2011$
*U.S. average for comparison purposes only. Sources: U.S. DOT, BTS; U.S. DOE, EIA; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Statistics; AMHS; AKRR; IFA; Ingram, 2008; company proprietary information; author calculations.
Barges Ships Ferries
Average ton-miles per gallon of fuel 186 146 19
Average fuel costs per ton-mile $0.016 $0.021 $2.37
CO2 emissions per ton mile (kilograms) 0.05 0.08 0.53
Water
Railroad Trucks
Average miles per gallon 0.1 4.5
Average ton-miles per gallon of fuel 280 48
Average fuel costs per mile $21 $0.61
Average fuel costs per ton-mile $0.03 $0.27
Railroad Ferry Air*
Average miles per gallon 0.2 0.06 --
Average passengers-miles per gallon of fuel 120 12 50
Average fuel costs per mile $15 $45 --
Average fuel costs per passengers-mile $0.02 $3.83 $0.09
39
Figure 14. Comparison of fuel use and costs per ton-mile for Alaska transportation, 2007–2010, 2011$
Sources: U.S. DOT, BTS; U.S. DOE, EIA; U.S. Waterborne Statistics; AMHS; AKRR; IFA; company proprietary information; author calculations.
*U.S. average for comparison purposes only.
Figure 15. Comparison of fuel use and costs per passenger-mile for rail and air, 2007–2010, 2011$ Sources: U.S. DOT, BTS; U.S. DOE, EIA; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Statistics; AMHS; AKRR;
IFA; Ingram, 2008; company proprietary information; author calculations.
40
Change in Transportation Costs and Impact on Alaska Industries
This section examines the economic impact of changes in oil prices and refined petroleum fuel prices on
the Alaska economy, industries, and households, and the resulting effect of those changes on
transportation services. We initiate the discussion with a description of the Alaska transportation
sectors analyzed—air, water, truck, and rail—in employment, payroll, and the number of firms in 2008
(Table 21) and compare these characteristics and changes with data from 2010 (Table 22 and Table 23).
Rail transportation does not appear in these employment numbers because Alaska Railroad employees
are state employees; those numbers are part of the state government sector.
Table 21. Alaska transportation sector employment, payroll, and firms by transportation mode, 2008
48311 Deep sea, coastal, and great lakes 64 39 8 6
483111 Deep sea freight transportation 3 1 1 0
483113 Coastal and great lakes freight 55 32 7 6
483114 Coastal and great lakes passenger 6 6 0 0
48321 Inland water 29 28 1 0
483211 Inland water freight 12 12 0 0
483212 Inland water passenger 17 16 1 0
484 Truck transportation 225 133 28 25
*Not a complete list of all size firms, but the total includes all firms of all sizes. Source: U.S. Census, http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpdetl.pl
Using IMPLAN, we examine the sensitivity of the Alaska economy to the increase in transportation costs
and fuel prices. We do this by passing cost increases to transportation consumers, which are households
and industries that purchase transportation services. The input-output modeling methodology described
earlier informs us regarding the transportation intensity of each sector. In input-output terminology, the
model gives us the gross absorption of each of the transportation modes, which is simply the cents
spent on that activity per dollar of output. Given that we also have the total output produced by each
sector, we know the dollar amount that is spent by any given industry on transportation services. In the
very short run, all else held constant, we simply analyze how the increase in transportation service
prices would influence the sector’s demand for inputs, which in this setting is equivalent to a decrease in
value added, given that output is kept constant (see Appendix D for a glossary of economic impact
terms).
Price increases are applied in the following way: We multiply the transportation sector’s refined
petroleum fuel-price increase times the share that refined petroleum fuel purchases represent per
dollar of output for that transportation sector (Table 26). For example, if refined petroleum fuel
products are 0.312 of each unit of output of air transportation, then a 29.16% increase in the price of
refined petroleum fuel products results in a 9.1% increase in the cost of a unit of air transportation or:
Industry $317,363,488 $267,229,648 $261,221,552 -18%
All $758,412,512 $623,975,376 $609,946,604 -20%
Institution demand, or final demand as it is sometimes called, is demand for goods and services for final use. Final use means that the goods or service will be consumed and not incorporated into another product. In contrast, industry commodity demand is the intermediate use of a good or service to produce another good or service. An example would be the tourism industry purchasing air transportation services as part of a tour package. Commodity demand is the amount of purchases of transportation services by institutions (final purchases) and industry (intermediate purchases as inputs to production). Source: IMPLAN Input-Output Model for Alaska (2008–2010) and author calculations.
The aggregate picture presented in Table 30 makes clear that the demand for transportation decreased
along with economic conditions, including the major recession. However, the magnitude of the decrease
is not consistent across the four sectors. Also, institutional demand decreased for transport by air, while
demand by industries was flat; on the other hand, we see that demand by industries for transportation
by water has taken a sharp decrease. However, industry commodity demand for water transportation is
only 5% of total water transportation demand.
Next, we examine how transportation-related expenditures have changed for the different sectors.
Using IMPLAN data for 2008 and 2010, we look at how expenditures on different transportation modes
shifted for a given industry by following these steps:
First, we generate transportation dollars for years 2008 and 2010, which are comprised of the
expenditures made by the different sectors on air, water, rail, and truck transportation services.
50
Second, we generate shares that these different transportation sectors comprise from the
overall transport dollars.
Third, we compare how the allocation of transportation dollars shifted between 2008 and 2010.
By comparing the shares across years, we get an idea, for example, if air transportation represents a
bigger or smaller share of the overall transportation dollars in the Alaska economy.
Before showing the changes, we list the industries with the highest absolute transportation
expenditures and the share those expenditures represent of their total output (Table 31).
Table 31. Alaska industries with largest transportation expenditure inputs, 2008, million$$
Industry Code Name Output Transport Share
61 Seafood product preparation and packaging $3.3 $67.3 0.0204
29 Support activities for oil and gas operations $2.8 $46.0 0.0164
335 Transport by truck $570.0 $29.5 0.0518
28 Drilling oil and gas wells $920.0 $18.2 0.0198
34 Construction of new nonresidential commercial and health care structures
$1,500.0 $17.4 0.0116
37 Construction of new residential single-/multi-family $870.0 $16.1 0.0185
31 Electric power generation, transmission, distribution $840.0 $14.8 0.0176
24 Mining gold, silver, and other metal ore $1,200.0 $13.2 0.0110
413 Food services and drinking places $1,500.0 $12.1 0.0081
432 Other state and local government enterprises $1,100.0 $11.9 0.0108
36 Construction of other new nonresidential structures $860.0 $11.0 0.0128
Impact of Change in Transportation Costs on Alaska Households
We apply the same transport price increases to households as we do to industry—by multiplying the
mode's price increase times the share that refined petroleum purchases represent per dollar of output
(see Table 26 for details). Nine household income categories are in our model, and they all consume
transportation services, which now cost more as a result of the price shock imposed; this is the same
price increase faced by industries, as discussed earlier. The changes for households reflect direct and
indirect consumer purchases of transportation services. For example, an apple purchased at a grocery
store includes imbedded transportation services that include shipping from its origin in the orchard to
the grocery store shelves. The scenario presented in Table 34 assumes that these household groups will
continue consuming the same amounts of transportation services at their higher price to infer how
much “income loss” would be incurred after the price increases. Transportation dollars are once again
comprised of dollars spent on air, rail, truck, and water transportation services (Table 34).
Table 34. Increases in the cost of transportation services to households by income groups after an increase in the price of refined petroleum products, millions$$
Direct household expenditures on transportation services
All households with incomes of:
Air Rail Water Truck
Before After Before After Before After Before After
less than $10,000 $6.7 $7.3 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $3.8 $3.9
The total effect on households would be equivalent to a loss of income equaling $26.8 million (Table 35).
This “loss” is simply the first-order decrease in income available for household purchases as a result of
53
the increase in prices of transportation services. The table shows that among households at almost
every income level, the increase in spending for transportation services after the imposed price increase
is approximately the same percentage (6% to 7%).
Table 35. Increases in the cost of air, rail, water, and truck transportation services to households by income groups after an increase in the price of refined petroleum products, millions$$
All households Direct household expenditures on transportation services
with incomes of: Before After Difference Share of change
less than $10,000 $10.7 $11.5 $0.8 3%
$10,000-$14,999 $7.0 $7.4 $0.5 2%
$15,000-$24,999 $21.6 $22.9 $1.3 5%
$25,000-$34,999 $22.6 $24.1 $1.5 5%
$35,000-$49,999 $45.0 $48.0 $3.0 11%
$50,000-$74,999 $72.6 $77.5 $4.8 18%
$75,000-$99,999 $59.8 $63.7 $3.9 14%
$100,000-$149,999 $72.1 $77.0 $4.9 18%
$150,000+ $92.6 $98.7 $6.2 23%
Total $404.1 $430.8 $26.8 Source: IMPLAN Input-Output Model, author calculations.
The increases in transportation service costs or equivalent “household income losses” in Table 34 depict
the assumption that all households continue to consume the same level of transportation services even
after the price increases. Table 35 shows two types of information: (1) how much more those services
would cost based on the transportation-services consumption patterns of specific household income
groups, and (2) the share of increase in cost of transportation services that each household income
group would absorb of the total cost increases. Table 34 shows how these increased costs would be
spread across the air, rail, water, and trucking sectors. Again, these figures are the total amount each
household income group would pay for transportation services by mode following increases in the cost
of these services and assuming no change in rate of consumption. The cost increases result from an
increase in the price of refined petroleum products.
In contrast, Table 36 shows how the allocation of transportation dollars would shift for different
household income groups if we remove the assumption that they will continue to consume
transportation services at the same rate as before the price increase. This exercise simply examines how
the shares of each sector change because of price increases imposed for transportation services; it
reflects actual cost changes between 2008 and 2010. The changes in Table 36 also include the reduction
in consumer purchasing that resulted from the recession.
54
Table 36. Shift in household purchases of air, rail, water, and truck transportation services due to increases in the cost of transportation services
All households with incomes of: Air Rail Water Truck
Notes: Numbers in black are directly from the BTS and EIA data. Blue numbers were calculated from BTS, EIA data and other proprietary data sources. Total weight includes freight, mail, and passengers. Aircraft type numbers are T100 data codes. Fuel prices in blue are estimates based on OPIS price data and limited proprietary data provided. Sources: U.S. DOT, BTS; U.S. DOE, EIA; U.S. Waterborne Statistics; AMHS; AKRR; IFA; company proprietary information; author calculations.
Despite this lack of precision, we can see that CO₂ emissions from barges and ships range from about
10% to 15% per ton-mile of freight carried, as compared with ferries (Table 39). The Alaska Railroad
emissions are about 20% of that from trucks, per ton-mile transported (Table 40). The railroad moves
passengers at approximately half the per passenger-mile emissions of the national estimate for aviation
and about 10% of the estimate for ferries (Table 41). The per passenger-mile carbon emissions of ferry
transportation is, on average, about five times greater than the national estimate for air passenger
Total rail gallons 5,563,690 4,470,049 4,813,548 5,142,645
CO2 emissions [mt] 56,471 45,371 48,858 52,198
Total Alaska CO2 emissions [mt] 12,843,433 10,688,654 8,664,682 10,209,009
57
transportation (without an aviation emissions multiplier), likely as a result of the Alaska Marine Highway
System’s low capacity factor and passenger-miles per gallon of fuel. Emission multipliers are used for
aviation because the impacts of emissions are greater at altitude (Jardine, 2009). These emissions
multipliers range in value from 1.9 to 4, depending on the emissions calculator and studies (Jardine,
2009). Use of an emissions multiplier reduces this difference, but air transportation emissions per
passenger-mile still remain below the transportation emissions of ferries (Table 41). Estimates of
aviation emissions with and without an emissions multiplier are shown in Table 41.
Table 39. Estimated water transportation ton-miles per gallon and fuel costs and emissions per ton-mile transported, Alaska 2007–2010, 2011$
Water
Barges Ships Ferries
Average ton-miles per gallon of fuel 186 146 19
Average fuel costs per ton-mile $0.016 $0.021 $2.37
CO2 emissions per ton-mile (kilograms) 0.05 0.08 0.53 Sources: U.S. DOT, BTS; U.S. DOE, EIA; U.S. Waterborne Statistics; AMHS; IIFA; company proprietary information; author calculations.
Table 40. Comparison of estimated land transportation modes ton-miles per gallon and fuel costs and emissions per ton-mile transported, Alaska 2007–2010, 2011$
Railroad Trucks
Average ton-miles per gallon of fuel 279 48
Average fuel costs per ton-mile $0.01 $0.06
CO2 emissions per ton-mile (kilograms) 0.04 0.21 Sources: U.S. DOT, BTS; U.S. DOE, EIA; AKRR; company proprietary information; author calculations.
Table 41. Comparison of estimated passenger transportation modes passenger-miles per gallon and fuel costs and emissions per passenger-mile transported, Alaska 2007–2010, 2011$
Railroad Ferry Air*
Average passengers-miles per gallon of fuel 120 12 50
Average fuel costs per passengers-mile $0.02 $3.83 $0.09
CO2 emissions per passenger-mile (kilograms) 0.08 0.85 0.19
*U.S. average for comparison purposes only. Show with and without aviation emissions multiplier. Sources: U.S. DOT, BTS; U.S. DOE, EIA; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Statistics; AMHS; IFA; Jardine, 2009;
Ingram, 2008; company proprietary information; author calculations
Carbon Emissions Tax Analysis
This section analyzes the potential impact of a carbon tax on Alaska industries and the air, water, rail
and trucking transportation sectors. By using IMPLAN, we capture not only the direct fuel use of an
industry but also the embedded energy intensity of all industry inputs. We do not analyze a specific tax
proposal, since none is currently pending. Instead, we show the relative impact of a tax on carbon
58
emissions on the four transportation sectors analyzed. (U.S. EPA, 2006; Schipper, Unander, Murtishaw,
Ting, 2001)
A carbon tax structured to decrease carbon emissions usually works by providing incentives for
industries and households to adjust behavior by substituting away from the most carbon intensive
products. This shift occurs because the prices of these products rise proportionately more than less-
intensive ones. The carbon intensity of any given product is largely driven by the types of fossil fuels
used in its production and by suppliers (Table 42).
Table 42. Industry sectors most impacted by a potential carbon emissions tax
Energy
IMPLAN CO2 intensity "Tax"
Rank IMPLAN sector name Sector # Per unit of output
1 Petroleum refineries 115 0.1039 0.0104
2 Natural gas distribution 32 0.0698 0.0070
3 State and local government electric use 431 0.0452 0.0045
4 Asphalt paving mixture and block manuf. 116 0.0398 0.0040
5 State and local government passenger 430 0.0391 0.0039
6 Other basic chemical manufacturing 126 0.0370 0.0037
7 Transport by pipeline 337 0.0268 0.0027
8 Plastics material and resin manufacturing 127 0.0265 0.0026
9 Commercial fishing 17 0.0240 0.0024
10 Transport by air 332 0.0232 0.0023
11 Fertilizer manufacturing 130 0.0173 0.0017
12 Services to buildings and dwellings 388 0.0167 0.0017
13 Electric power generation transmission 31 0.0154 0.0015
14 Other state and local government enter. 432 0.0139 0.0014
15 Transport by truck 335 0.0120 0.0012
16 All other crop farming 10 0.0115 0.0011
17 All other chemical product and prep. 141 0.0111 0.0011
The calculated “tax” is the relative “tax” increase per unit of output, based on the carbon intensity of a
unit of production of output. The highest kilogram of CO2 per unit of output is for water transportation
followed by air, truck, and rail. The relatively higher carbon intensity of water transportation per unit of
output as compared with air transportation per unit of output results primarily from the comparative
advantage of air transportation’s higher value output per energy input (see column headed “mmBtu/$
of output” in Table 43). However, this initial result does not include an aviation emissions multiplier. As
just discussed, these multipliers range from 1.9 to 4 for each kilogram of carbon emissions (Jardine,
2009). If an average multiplier of 2.9 is applied to the air carbon intensity per unit of output, the relative
“tax” on air transportation is 0.0045, or 1.8 times greater than the comparative tax on water
transportation. Therefore, a carbon tax would have a relatively higher impact per unit of output for air
transportation than for water transportation following the imposition of an air emissions multiplier.
Given that the different transport sectors face different taxes, the consuming sectors would also face a
varying additional burden, depending upon how much of each of these services they consume. It is
noteworthy that while some sectors may not be large consumers of transport relative to the overall
scale of the economy, the expenditures geared toward transport are a significant portion of their outlay.
Therefore, the transport usage intensity—not just the dollar outlay—should be taken into account when
considering such measures.
60
Energy used in production calculation method:
The intensity is defined by , which measures the kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions per final
consumption of the output from industry (i). Therefore a carbon dioxide tax of α, which is placed on
carbon dioxide emissions, is equivalent to an ad valorem tax exclusive tax rate on the commodity
group , where1
α
As the intensity is expressed in terms of each dollar’s worth of the output that contributes to final
demands, the total amount of carbon dioxide arising from all industries, E, is given by
∑ = y
where is the value of final demand for industry i for i =1, n. The terms c and y denote corresponding
column vectors, and the prime indicates transposition. The carbon dioxide intensities depend in a direct
way on the types and amounts of fossil fuels used by each industry and the emissions per unit of those
fossil fuels. However, the problem is complicated by the need to consider the total output of each
industry, rather than merely the amount of that output which is consumed, that is the final demand.
Alaska fuel usage, expenditures, and intensity:
Calculations and variables:
e' the k-element vector of CO2 emissions (kg of carbon dioxide) per unit of energy (Btu) associated
with each of the k fossil fuels.
k fuels: Diesel fuel, Jet Fuel, Residual
F' n*k matrix matrix of energy requirements in Btus for n industries (transport) across k fuel
types
n number of industries (transport)
k fuels
** Multiplying the transpose of the e vector by the transpose of the F matrix gives a row vector, which
contains the carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross output from each industry:
= ( ) Carbon dioxide intensities
where ) is the total requirement matrix.
E Total carbon dioxide emissions (not comprehensive but as defined by the k fuels
1 For further exposition, see Creedy, J., and Sleeman, C. (2004b) Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reductions in New Zealand: A
Minimum Disruption Approach. New Zealand Treasury and Creedy, J., and Sleeman, C. (2004a) Carbon Taxation, Prices and Household Welfare in New Zealand.
61
( )*Y
Y: final demand
α: ad hoc tax in this case 10$ per kg on carbon dioxide emissions
Tau(i) : α
which refers to the ad valorem tax exclusive rate on the ith commodity group tau i.
From the EIA, SEDS information, we obtained the statewide fuel consumption in Btus for diesel fuel, jet
fuel, and residual fuel oil. We used the IMPLAN statewide output to generate the Btus per dollar of
output from which we generate an industry/fossil fuel-specific Btus per dollar of output. This calculation
becomes our matrix of energy requirements in Btus for n transport industries across k fossil fuels,
which provides an estimate of the energy requirements per unit of output/demand of the Alaska
economy. This method is more comprehensive than simply applying a carbon tax to direct fuel usage.
Consider increasing the final consumption of a good by $1. The problem is to evaluate how much carbon
dioxide this would involve. This increase in the final demand by $1 involves a larger increase in the gross,
or total, output of the good, as well as requiring increases in the outputs of other goods, because
intermediate goods, including the particular good of interest, are needed in the production process. The
extent to which there is an increase in carbon dioxide depends also on the intermediate requirements of
all goods, which are themselves intermediate requirements for the particular good. Indeed, the
sequence of intermediate requirements continues until it “works itself out,” such that the additional
amounts needed become negligible. This is in fact a standard multiplier process.
= ( )
This expression can then be used together with a selected carbon tax rate to calculate the effective
carbon tax rates given by the following equation:
α
This analysis uses the industry input matrix of the IMPLAN software to account for the use of energy in
the Alaska economy. In this way, we estimate both the fuel use and energy intensity per unit of output
of final demand in the Alaska economy. Naturally, the most transport-intensive commodities are the
ones that face the highest “tax” increase.
Conclusions
In this analysis, we estimated energy and fuel use by Alaska transportation sectors to understand
impacts of sudden increases in fuel price or an emissions tax on the transportation sectors and the
Alaska economy. Results of our analysis indicate that Alaska major industries are most vulnerable to fuel
price shocks. Alaska households are impacted directly and indirectly because most goods are shipped
long distances to Alaska. We found that the inability to collect accurate data seriously hampered our
ability to conduct this analysis. Even publically available data such as the BTS datasets are not
62
constructed or cross-referenced in a way that permits comprehensive regional fuel use, energy, and
emissions analyses.
We estimated the energy and fuel used by the air, water, trucking, and rail transportation sectors in
Alaska. We compared their fuel intensity to move passengers and freight by estimating their passenger-
miles per gallon of fuel, ton-miles per gallon of fuel, and fuel costs per passenger-mile and per ton-mile.
We estimated that rail is the most efficient form of transportation for moving freight per gallon of fuel,
followed by barge, marine ship, truck, and ferry. In estimating passenger-miles per gallon of fuel, we
found again that rail transport is the most fuel-efficient, followed by air and ferry. Fuel costs per ton-
mile and passenger-mile followed the same pattern of efficiency.
Faced with continued high or increasing fuel prices or carbon legislation, the demand for Alaska Railroad
transportation services could potentially increase with shifts away from trucking. However, because the
distance from Anchorage to Fairbanks is relatively short, freight handling would have to be quite
efficient and wages competitive to compete with the comparative efficiency of truck transportation,
with its fewer freight intermodal transfers.
We also found that between 2008 and 2010, employment in Alaska in the transportation and
warehousing industry sector declined by approximately 10%. Air transportation employment declined by
15%, with scheduled airfreight transportation employment declining by 42%. Truck transportation
employment declined by 15%, and water transportation employment expanded by 30%.
To connect transportation costs to the Alaska economy, we examined a number of factors including an
assessment of the most transportation-intensive industries. The industries that are most dependent on
transportation services, and thus more sensitive to changes in transportation costs, are:
1. Seafood product preparation and packaging
2. Support activities for oil and gas operations
3. Transport by truck
4. Drilling of oil and gas wells
5. Construction of new nonresidential commercial and health care structures
6. Construction of new residential single-/multi-family housing
7. Electric power generation, transmission, distribution
8. Mining of gold, silver, and other metal ore
9. Food services and drinking places
10. Other state and local government enterprises
As a result, these industries are the most impacted by increases in fuel prices or other impacts that raise
the cost of transportation services as an input in their production. Most of these are core industries in
the Alaska economy, so any impacts to these industries would have broad consequences.
Similarly, we looked at the Alaska industries that would be most affected by carbon emissions
legislation. These industries are:
63
1. Petroleum refineries
2. Natural gas distribution
3. State and local government electric use
4. Asphalt paving mixture and block manufacturing
5. State and local government passenger
6. Other basic chemical manufacturing
7. Transport by pipeline
8. Plastics material and resin manufacturing
9. Commercial fishing
10. Transport by air
These are also the industries that could have the most payback from increased efficiencies and reduced
dependence on fossil fuels in terms of avoiding potential emission tax impacts.
Because of the fuel and carbon intensity of air transportation, there has been sustained improvement in
air transportation efficiency, with increased load factors and increased fuel efficiency of airplanes. Of
the four transportation sectors analyzed, air transportation is the most vulnerable to emissions
legislation impacts.
Alaska households at all income levels are also vulnerable to increases in the price of transportation
services as a result of fuel price increases or carbon emissions legislation. If Alaska households continued
to purchase transportation services at the same level after fuel price increases similar to those that
occurred between 2008 and 2010, these services would cost an additional $26.8 million; an estimated
73% of these cost increases would be paid by households earning over $50,000 annually because they
are more able to absorb these higher costs. In all likelihood, however, households would reduce their
expenditures on transportation services. Water and truck transportation services declined the most in
our simulation, probably because the majority of routine purchases of goods by Alaska households are
transported by water and truck.
In addition to the higher cost of transportation services resulting from increases in fuel prices, direct
purchases of refined petroleum products by Alaska households would cost an additional $124.1 million,
if households continued to purchase at the same level after the kinds of fuel price increases experienced
between 2008 and 2010. Similar to transportation services price increases, an estimated 70% of the
refined petroleum price increases would be absorbed by households with incomes of $50,000 or higher.
Our economic impact simulation did not include utilities, so price increases for space heating and
electricity are not included in these estimates.
64
References for Report and Appendices
ADLWD (Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis), 2012, Consumer Price Index, Accessed December 1, 2012, http://labor.alaska.gov/research/cpi/cpi.htm
ADOT&PF (Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities), 2011, Alaska Aviation System Plan.
ADOT&PF (Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities), 2008, Let’s Get Moving 2030: Alaska Statewide Long-Range Transportation Policy Plan, February.
ADOT&PF (Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities), AMHS (Alaska Marine Highway System), 2012, Network Map.
Alaska Air Carriers Association, 2012, Alaska Aviation Facts. Accessed August 12, 2012, http://www.alaskaaircarriers.org/
Cadavoa, L. 2010, Anchorage Fuel Sellers Report, Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport, Phone# 907-266-2413. Personal communication.
Chase, A. Robert, 2004, Ties That Bind: The Enduring Economic Impact of Alaska on the Puget Sound Region, Huckwell/Wieman Associates, Commissioned by the Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber of Commerce and Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce.
Creedy, J. and Sleeman, C., 2004a, Carbon Taxation, Prices and Household Welfare in New Zealand, Treasury Working Paper Series 04/23, New Zealand Treasury.
Creedy, J. and Sleeman, C., 2004b, Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reductions in New Zealand: A Minimum Disruption Approach, New Zealand Treasury.
Creedy, J. and Sleeman, C., 2005, Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reductions in New Zealand: A Minimum Disruption Approach, Australian Economic Papers, 44(3): 199–220.
CSX, Inc. Company profile, http://www.csx.com/
Fisheries Economics Data Program, Monthly Marine Fuel Prices, http://www.psmfc.org/efin/data/fuel.html
Fried, Neal and Brynn Keith, 2005, Transportation: Alaska geography makes it an important sector, Alaska Economic Trends, January.
Ghanta, Praveen, 2010, Fuel Efficiency: Modes of Transportation Ranked by MPG, http://truecostblog.com/2010/05/27/fuel-efficiency-modes-of-transportation-ranked-by-mpg/
Government Accountability Office (GAO), 2011, Surface Freight Transportation: A Comparison of the Costs of Road, Rail, and Waterways Freight Shipments That Are Not Passed on to Consumers (GAO-11-134).
Gray, John T. and J. Phillip Rowe, 1982, An Alaska Census of Transportation, Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage.
Holguín-Veras, José, Jeffrey Wojtowicz, Carlos González-Calderón,, Michael Lawrence, Jonathan Skolnik, Michael Brooks, Shanshan Zhang, Anne Strauss-Wieder and Lóri Tavasszy, 2013, Freight Data Cost Elements, National Cooperative Freight Research Program, Transportation Research Board, NCFRP Report 22.
ICF International, 2009, Comparative Evaluation of Rail and Truck Fuel Efficiency on Competitive Corridors, prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Policy and Communications.
Ingram, George, 2008, Coping With Sky-High Jet Fuel Prices, Director, Airline Operations, Air Transport Association of America.
Jardine, Christian N., 2009, Calculating the Carbon Dioxide Emissions of Flights, Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University Centre for the Environment.
Lee, Joosung J., Stephen P. Lukachko, Ian A.Waitz, and Andreas Schafer, 2001, Historical and Future Trends in Aircraft Performance, Cost, and Emissions, Annual Review Energy and Environment, 26: 167–200.
Leontief, W., 1936, Quantitative input and output relations in the economic system of the United States. Review of Economic Statistics, 18: 105–125.
Leontief, W., 1966, Input-output economics. New York: Oxford University Press, 257 pp.
Metz, Paul, Mark Taylor, Tom Brigham, Stephane Larocqu, Jana Pierce, Ashleigh Arledge, Jim Calvin, Erin Harrington, Scott Miller, Bob Lingwood, Dave Marshall, and Teresa Watts, 2011, Alaska Marine Highway System Analysis, prepared by the Alaska University Transportation Center for the Alaska Marine Highway System, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.
MIG, Inc., 2011, IMPLAN System (data and software), 502 2nd Street, Suite 301, Hudson, WI 54016 www.implan.com
Northern Economics, Inc., Economic and Community Contributions of Selected Alaska Airports: 12 Case Studies, Prepared for Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, June 2011.
Northern Economics, Inc., The Economic Contribution of the Aviation Industry to the Economy of Alaska, Prepared for Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities as part of the Alaska Aviation System Plan, March 2009.
Northern Economics, Inc., 2006, Port of Anchorage Consolidation and Distribution Concept Feasibility Study, prepared for the Anchorage Economic Development Corporation, April 2006.
Oil Price Information Services, weekly and monthly refinery prices wholesale price data, multiple years, www.opisnet.com
Peeters, P.M., J. Middel, and A. Hoolhorst, 2005, Fuel efficiency of commercial aircraft: An overview of historical and future trends, National Aerospace Laboratory, NLR-CR-2005-669.
QGI Consulting, Alaska Canada Rail Link, 2006, Traffic Data Development for Regional Re-supply, Alaska, Work Package: A-1 (A), March 4, 2006.
Schultz, Caroline, 2012, The Span of Alaska’s Railroads, Alaska Economic Trends, Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section, Volume 32, Number 3, March.
Schipper, Lee, Fridtjof Unander, Scott Murtishaw, and Mike Ting, 2001, Indicators of Energy Use and Carbon Emissions: Explaining the Energy Economy Link, Annual Review Energy and Environment, 26: 49–81.
Siebe, 2012, Senior Airport Engineer, HDR, Alaska, personal communication, December 2012.
Stolzer, Alan J., 2002, Fuel Consumption Modeling of a Transport Category Aircraft Using Flight Operations Quality Assurance Data: A Literature Review, Journal of Air Transportation, 7(1).
Tuck, Brad and Mary Killorin, 2004, Economic Significance of Alaska Railroad, prepared for Alaska Railroad Corporation, Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage.
The Center for Neighborhood Technology, Travel Matters, 2013, prepared under contract with the Transit Cooperative Research Program, sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration, in cooperation with the Transportation Research Board and the American Public Transportation Association. http://www.travelmatters.org/calculator/individual/methodology
T.O.T.E., 2012, company website.
TRB (Transportation Research Board), 2012a, Climate Change and Transportation: Summary of Key Information, Transportation Research Circular E-C164, July.
TRB (Transportation Research Board), 2012b, Adapting to Climate Change: Building a Network of Solutions, TR News, July–August 2012, Number 281.
UAA (University of Alaska Anchorage, College of Business & Public Policy, Department of Logistics and Port of Anchorage, Municipality of Anchorage), 2011, Alaska’s Lifeline: Cargo Distribution Patterns from the Port of Anchorage to Southcentral, Northern, Western and Southeast Alaska, February,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2012a, Waterborne Commerce Statistics, Part 4: Pacific Coast, Alaska and Hawaii, 2006-2010, updated June 6, 2012, http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/wcsc/wcsc.htm#2010 Waterborne Commerce of the United States (WCUS) and http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/wcsc/pdf/wcuspac10.pdf
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2012b, Waterborne Transportation Lines of the Unites States 2010: Volume 3 – Vessel Characteristics, http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/veslchar/pdf/wtlusvl3_10.pdf
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2012, Distances between United States Ports, 2012 (12th) edition., http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/nsd/distances-ports/distances.pdf
U.S. DOE, EIA (U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration), 2012a, State Energy Data System, June 29, 2012. http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/hf.jsp?incfile=sep_sum/html/rank_use_per_cap.html
U.S. DOE, EIA (U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration), 2012b, Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program, Fuel Emission Coefficients, Table 2: Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors for Transportation Fuels, http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html#tbl2
U.S. DOE, EIA (U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration), 2007, Documentation for Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the U.S. 2005, DOE/EIA-0638 (2005), October 2007, Tables 6-1, 6-4, and 6-5.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 2005, Advisory Circular Aircraft Weight and Balance Control, AC 120-27E, 6/10/05.
U.S. DOT, RITA, BTS (U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics),2010, Aviation Library: http://www.transtats.bts.gov/databases.asp?Mode_ID=1&Mode_Desc=Aviation&Subject_ID2=0
U.S. DOT, RITA, BTS (U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics), Aviation data (BTS). 2012a. Air Carriers: T-100
Segment (All Carriers). Accessed October 21, 2012, http://www.transtats.bts.gov/DL_SelectFields.asp?Table_ID=293&DB_Short_Name=Air%20Carriers
U.S. DOT, RITA, BTS (U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics), Aviation data (BTS). 2012b. Air Carrier Traffic and Capacity Statistics by Aircraft Type: Schedule T2. Accessed October 21, 2012, http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Fields.asp?Table_ID=254
U.S. DOT, RITA, BTS (U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics), Aviation data (BTS). 2012c. Air Carrier Financials: Schedule P-12 (a). Accessed October 21, 2012, http://www.transtats.bts.gov/DL_SelectFields.asp?Table_ID=294&DB_Short_Name=Air%20Carrier%20Financial
U.S. DOT, RITA, BTS (U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics), Aviation data (BTS). 2012d. Form 41, Schedule T100 and T100(f) Air Carrier Data. Accessed on October 21, 2012, http://www.bts.gov/programs/statistical_policy_and_research/source_and_accuracy_compendium/form41_schedule.html
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2009, 2010, Table VM-1, April 2010. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2009/vm1.cfm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2006.
Verrelli, Sarah, 2012, Work Place Deaths on Steady Decline, Alaska Economic Trends, Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section, Volume 32, Number 3, March.
Wells, Douglas P., 2011, NASA Green Flight Challenge: Conceptual Design Approaches and Technologies to Enable 200 Passenger Miles per Gallon, NASA Langley Research Center.
Winebrake, James J. and James J. Corbett, Improving the Energy Efficiency and Environmental Performance of Goods Movement, in Climate and Transportation Solutions: Findings from the 2009 Asilomar Conference on Transportation and Energy Policy, edited by Daniel Sperling and James S. Cannon (Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, 2010).
SALA_cost_real author calc. Inflation adjusted SALA_cost using the U.S. CPI as shown at:
http://labor.alaska.gov/research/cpi/cpi.htm and converting to 2011 U.S. $
SALAgallons BTS - P12A Fuel consumption of scheduled intra-Alaska flights
-C-3-
FUEL EIA SEDS Transportation sector fuel consumption of aviation gas and jet fuel in gallons,
equal to fuel consumption of intra-Alaska flights and flights exiting Alaska. Originally, these data were
annual and av-gas and jet fuel were summed. I reallocated based on seasonality observed in intra-Alaska
fuel consumed on scheduled and non-scheduled flights.
Note, through 2004, the EIA data includes kerosene-type (Jet A) and naphtha-type (Jet B) jet fuel.
Beginning in 2005, data only include kerosene-type jet (A) fuel. Naphtha-type jet fuel, which is used by
the military, is included in EIA SEDS "Industrial sector, Other Petroleum."
Note, fuel consumption by the military is not included in the BTS data.
FUELcost EIA Transportation sector fuel cost of aviation gas and jet fuel in gallons equal to
fuel costs related to intra-Alaska flights and flights exiting Alaska. Just like the data on fuel (see above),
these data are aggregated into annual numbers. Since we have much more granular data for aviation, it
makes sense to use the best available data we have, so for intra-Alaska flights, we use the monthly fuel
price information. Since the entering and exiting fuel quantities are estimates based on EIA SEDS
estimates, it seems like it would be reasonable to use the annual fuel price figures that accompany that
data. Otherwise, the effort required to produce precision in fuel quantity data may not be supported.
FUELcost_real author calc. The product of FUELcost and an annual average price calculated in sheet: EIA_SEDS_fuel_cost inflation adjusted using the U.S. CPI as shown at: http://labor.alaska.gov/research/cpi/cpi.htm and converting to 2011 U.S. $ CONFIG (Aircraft configuration) Code Description 0 Aircraft Configuration Not Relevant 1 Passenger Configuration
2 Freight Configuration 3 Combined Passenger and Freight on a main deck 4 Seaplane
9 Used for capturing expenses not attributed to specific aircraft types CLASS (service class) Note, highlighted are the classes observed in the data Code Description A Scheduled First Class Passenger/ Cargo Service A C Scheduled Coach Passenger/ Cargo Service C E Scheduled Mixed First Class and Coach, Passenger/ Cargo Service E F Scheduled Passenger/ Cargo Service F
G Scheduled All Cargo Service G H Humane Reason Unscheduled, Non-Revenue-Generating K Scheduled Service K (F+G) L Non-Scheduled Civilian Passenger/ Cargo Service L N Non-Scheduled Military Passenger/ Cargo Service N P Non-Scheduled Civilian All Cargo Service P Q Non-Scheduled Services (Other Than Charter) Q R Non-Scheduled Military All Cargo R
-C-4-
V Non-Scheduled Service V (L+N+P+R) For U.S. Carrier and (L+P+Q) For Foreign Carrier
Z All Service Z (K+V)
-C-5-
Table C1. Fuel usage and costs for intra-state scheduled air transportation in Alaska 2005-2010, 2011$
Notes: Numbers in black are directly from the BTS and EIA data. Blue numbers were calculated from BTS and EIA data. Total weight includes freight, mail and passengers. Aircraft type numbers are T100 data codes. Sources: U.S. DOT, BTS; U.S. DOE, EIA; FAA; author calculations.
TableC2. Fuel usage and costs for intra-state non-scheduled air transportation in Alaska 2005-2010, 2011$
Notes: Numbers in black are directly from the BTS and EIA data. Blue numbers were calculated from BTS and EIA data. Total weight includes freight, mail and passengers. Aircraft type numbers are T100 data codes. Sources: U.S. DOT, BTS; U.S. DOE, EIA; FAA; author calculations.
Table C3. Fuel usage and costs for exiting scheduled and non-scheduled air transportation in Alaska 2005-2010, 2011$
Notes: Numbers in black are directly from the BTS and EIA data. Blue numbers were calculated from BTS and EIA data. Total weight includes freight, mail and passengers. Aircraft type numbers are T100 data codes. Sources: U.S. DOT, BTS; U.S. DOE, EIA; FAA; author calculations.
Table C4. Fuel usage and costs for entering scheduled and non-scheduled air transportation in Alaska 2005-2010, 2011$
Notes: Numbers in black are directly from the BTS and EIA data. Blue numbers were calculated from BTS and EIA data. Total weight includes freight, mail and passengers. Aircraft type numbers are T100 data codes. Sources: U.S. DOT, BTS; U.S. DOE, EIA; FAA; author calculations..
